[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Mr Speaker: After four and a half years of dedicated and outstanding professional service to the House, the Deputy Serjeant at Arms, Mike Naworynsky, is sadly leaving us shortly to take up a new role in Oxford. I am sure that the whole House will want very warmly to thank him for all he has done on our behalf.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State for Culture Olympics, Media and Sport was asked—

Olympic/Paralympic Games: Legacy

Chris White: What steps her Department is taking to secure a legacy from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games.

Maria Miller: I am sure that you will not find it inappropriate for me to wish you, Mr Speaker, a happy Valentine’s day, although I am sure that I am not the first person to have done so this morning.
	The Government are clear about our vision to deliver legacy over the next 10 years, and we have already made substantial progress across the five core areas: sport and healthy living, economic, community, regeneration of east London and the Paralympics.

Mr Speaker: I wish the same to the Secretary of State.

Chris White: You took the words right out of my mouth, Mr Speaker.
	For sport in our country, 2012 was a fantastic year, but it is vital that we follow it up over the next few years, especially with the young people we have the greatest potential to influence. In my constituency, a charity called Kids Run Free organises events to get young people passionate about exercise and sets up races that are available to school and pre-school age groups. The races have spread across the west midlands and the charity is eager to do more. What support are the Government giving to innovative charities such as Kids Run Free, and how can we ensure that they get the resources they need so that we can build a long-lasting Olympic legacy?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to organisations such as the one he mentions in his community, which can inspire young people to get involved in sport and stay involved. The Government are supporting those organisations through our youth and community sport strategy, in which £1 billion is being invested over the next five years. Along with the work of Sport England, that makes us well placed to capitalise on the momentum from the Olympic and Paralympic games.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Government initially tried to scrap school sports partnerships completely but then changed their mind and put some funding back in. How many of their targets for school sports participation are being met these days?

Maria Miller: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have read in the press that Ofsted has produced an important report, in which it found that there has been an improvement in the provision of school sport since 2008. Everyone in the House would applaud that, but clearly we want to do more to build on the momentum from the Olympics and Paralympics. That is why we are continuing to put forward investment for the school games, which we think is an important legacy project, but we will continue to look at how we can ensure that teachers are able to provide the physical literacy that we know young people need.

John Whittingdale: I commend my right hon. Friend for the Government’s work to achieve a lasting legacy, but I ask her to focus on the financial legacy, particularly the money that was left within the budget and not spent. She will be aware of the big lottery refund campaign, now supported by more than 3,300 charities, which is pressing for that money to be returned. I know that it is the Government’s intention to do so, but can she indicate when that will occur?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to bring that up. The lottery’s financial role in many organisations’ lives is pivotal. We cannot yet finalise the accounts, so it would be a little premature of me to give any indication about it or when it might happen, but I certainly understand the point he makes. Organisations want to know how that will work as we move forward.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her comments so far. Northern Ireland played a very significant role in participating and medal-winning for Team GB at the Olympics. What discussions has she had with the equivalent Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that the legacy from the Olympics will also be in place for the young people in Northern Ireland who want a chance to be an Olympian?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that every corner of this great nation pulled together and supported the Olympics in a fantastic way. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), has a committee that looks particularly at sport participation, and the Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Cabinet Committee, which I chair, is looking at how we can
	make sure that that participation continues to grow over time in every part of the country. There are also local organisations dealing with this in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the United Kingdom.

Women’s Sport

Rehman Chishti: What support her Department is giving to women’s sport.

Maria Miller: The London 2012 games put women’s sport on the map, and we are committed to maintaining that very important momentum.

Rehman Chishti: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the news that Gillingham Anchorians rugby club, which is keen on increasing women’s membership, recently received £50,000 of national lottery funding?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is a very keen sportsman, and I am not surprised that he raises the important role that women play in rugby. I applaud the work in his constituency to make sure that that is happening. He may be aware that as a result of the Olympics and the Paralympics over 600,000 more women have participated regularly in sport. We can see no finer example of the contribution of women in sport than the women’s six nations tournament, which is going on at the moment. I am sure that every Member in this House will be supporting their home team.

Russell Brown: The Secretary of State is right about the achievements of women during the Olympics. The figures show that 36% of medals won at the Olympics were won by women, yet women get less than 1% of the sponsorship. Will she do something to try to redress that significant imbalance?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: sponsorship can be crucial in not only increasing the prominence of women’s sport but in enabling more women to go to an even higher level within their sport. I have been looking at this with people who are setting up support systems. Importantly, I recently held a round table with the press and with governing bodies, because we need to create the demand for such sponsorship, and that is all about creating an increased profile for women in their sporting areas.

Tracey Crouch: The prominence of role models is very important in relation to girls’ participation in sport. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the timetable for improving the broadcasting and reporting of women’s sport?

Maria Miller: Improvements in the coverage of women’s sport in the broadcasting or the press sector are up to the editorial control of those organisations. However, I absolutely believe that the Government can have an important role in voicing the nation’s belief that great women’s sport is going on out there that needs support. I have been working with press and broadcast organisations to highlight the great work that they are already doing, but also building on that further.

Barbara Keeley: Last night a packed meeting here in Westminster heard from the inspirational Claire Lomas and Martine Wright, both of whom have overcome severe disabilities to take part in their sports. They found their own motivation, but there are many barriers to participation of women and girls in sport. What will the Secretary of State do to encourage the 87% of women in Salford who are not participating to get interested in sport and fitness activities?

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that it is important that we reach out to women to help to increase participation even further. I have already cited the dramatic impact that hosting the Olympics and Paralympics has had in raising participation among women. Some sports have had a particularly successful track record in this area. Netball is one of the fastest growing women’s sports in the country, with participation having increased from 110,000 in 2005 to 158,000 last year. There are also examples in cycling and hockey. There is some good success, but we need to make sure that it is echoed in other areas too.

Broadband

Alun Cairns: What steps her Department is taking to improve broadband availability across the UK.

Edward Vaizey: We are investing some £680 million in urban and rural broadband. Taking into the account local authority funding and private sector investment, more than £1 billion is going towards rolling out broadband.

Alun Cairns: I pay tribute to the Minister and the Government for prioritising the roll-out of broadband and for the significant sums of public money they have committed to it. Openreach has been successful in many of the contracts for extending broadband provision, but its modelling can be inaccurate. Some of my constituents have switched to fibre-to-the-cabinet, but they do not get speeds anywhere near the original commitments. Given those inaccurate models, is the Minister confident that some of the providers will not come back for further public money?

Edward Vaizey: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the assiduous work he does for his constituents. The average speed in Wales has gone up from some 7.5 megabits to 12 megabits. We are investing almost £57 million in rolling out broadband. I note what he says about speed. It is important that customers understand the speeds they will be getting.

Andrew Gwynne: Several organisations, including those involved in the delivery of the project, have said that the Government will not meet the target of 90% of households having access to superfast broadband by 2015. What does the Minister have to say to the 2.6 million households that will have to wait between three and five years extra to access basic broadband?

Edward Vaizey: I say to the country as a whole that BT is undertaking the most ambitious roll-out of broadband almost anywhere in the world. We have the most ambitious rural broadband programme of any country in Europe and we are set on delivering superfast broadband to the vast majority of people in this country, which is a world-beating internet nation.

Roger Williams: I pay tribute to the Government’s determination to roll out broadband, particularly in rural areas, including national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. However, some of the provisions in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill would remove protections that such areas have enjoyed for 60 years. Is it necessary to put in jeopardy those areas in order to achieve rural broadband roll-out?

Edward Vaizey: It is absolutely essential that we strike a balance between protecting our rural environment and removing some of the obstacles that have slowed the roll-out of broadband, so that it can be laid more quickly, more cheaply and more efficiently. It is important to strike a balance and I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Helen Goodman: The House knows by now that it was Labour’s policy to roll out broadband across the nation by 2012. The Government put the target back to 2015 and BT now says that it will not be achieved until 2017. What will be the impact of the Prime Minister’s decision to agree the 90% cut in the European broadband budget last week?

Edward Vaizey: We would not expect that to have any impact on our own proposals. We are well ahead of the game in rolling out superfast broadband. Most of Europe—in fact, all of Europe—sees us as a leader in that respect. I am delighted that we did not introduce Labour’s telephone tax on hard-working people. Instead, we are delivering superfast broadband to the vast majority of people in this country.

Priti Patel: Rural villages in my constituency, including White Notley and Birch, are desperate to have the same standard of broadband as the urban centres in my constituency. Will the Minister guarantee that every possible effort will be undertaken to secure private and public investment to get the right levels of connections across my constituency?

Edward Vaizey: I can absolutely guarantee that I will make every effort to do that, particularly because my hon. Friend’s constituents are so ably represented. I know that she will continue to hold me to account.

Library Closures

Alex Cunningham: What assessment she has made of the number of library closures in England in 2013.

Barry Sheerman: What assessment she has made of the number of library closures in England in 2013.

Edward Vaizey: Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient public library service and to fund the service. My Department monitors the local authority proposals for library service changes in England and the annual Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy statistics, compiled from detail provided by the local authorities and published towards the end of this year.

Alex Cunningham: Somehow I did not expect the Minister to admit the grave situation his Government have created in the library sector. He should know that many councillors across the country are facing the prospect of closing the bulk of library buildings in their communities as Government cuts hit hard. How does that help the Minister fulfil the statutory duty to oversee the library service, and what message does he think he is sending young people and communities about the importance of reading and learning?

Edward Vaizey: What message is the hon. Gentleman sending when he talks down our library service? Local authorities have always paid for libraries and have always provided them, and they fund them with more than £800 million a year. Thousands of libraries are open up and down the country and new libraries are opening. Our library service is in very good health.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister does not have to shout when he is put in a corner. I wish him a very happy Valentine’s day. Opposition Members do not believe that there should be no change to the library service. We have to move with the times. However, libraries are the centre of a civilised community. They should be updated, but they are havens where people can go and where kids from poorer homes can do their homework. We should look at them as a setting in the community. It is the Government’s job to lead on this important issue.

Edward Vaizey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. I wish him a happy Valentine’s day and note his Valentine’s tie. I agree with everything that he said. That is why we have appointed a specialist libraries adviser and why we have set up a fund of £6 million at the Arts Council to support libraries. I could go on, but I do not want to take up too much time.

Gary Streeter: Is my hon. Friend aware that Devon county council has chosen to keep all its libraries open? Despite facing the same financial pressures as every other council, it has made a political choice to support the library service. Is that not the way forward?

Edward Vaizey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are countless examples of Conservative councils up and down the country making tough decisions to ensure that they continue to provide front-line services for their residents at the right cost.

Dan Jarvis: I welcome the Government’s decision to fund six libraries to become business incubators, but it comes at a time when unfair local government funding solutions mean that, since 2010, 640 libraries have closed, are under threat or have been left to volunteers. Why are the Government not
	developing a survival strategy to support local authorities? Why are the Government not recommending alternatives for the delivery of services? Where is the vision? Where is the leadership?

Edward Vaizey: I sometimes wonder whether the Labour spokesman looks at a single thing that I am doing. We have given responsibility for libraries to the Arts Council, we have set aside a £6 million fund, we have published the CIPFA statistics and we are piloting automatic membership for school children. He simply rolls over when Newcastle proposes to cut its culture and its libraries, and says, “I back Newcastle.”

Sport

Charlotte Leslie: What steps she is taking with her ministerial colleagues in other Government Departments to advance the role of sport.

Hugh Robertson: The Prime Minister has established the Cabinet Committee on Olympic and Paralympic Legacy, through which all Departments are working together to deliver a tangible and lasting legacy from London 2012. Sport is at the heart of that process.

Charlotte Leslie: It is evident that sport has a vital role in improving behaviour in schools and health outcomes, and in preventing youth offenders from reoffending, as I have seen at Ashfield young offenders institution near my constituency. Will the Minister pledge to work with colleagues from across Departments to ensure that such interventions are available to young people so that they can turn their lives around?

Hugh Robertson: Absolutely. That process is already happening, as is evident from the work that the Department of Health does through Change4Life clubs, the work of the National Centre for Sport and Exercise Medicine, and the cross-departmental funding for the school games.

Gregg McClymont: The Minister will be aware that betting on sport has always been central to the business model of betting shops, but a new development is the use of fixed odds betting terminals. Their high stakes and speed of play have led them to be described as the “crack cocaine of gambling”. In my constituency, there are more than 50 such terminals. What does the Minister intend to do about this problem?

Hugh Robertson: I am not entirely sure what that question had to do with advancing the role of sport. The answer on FOBTs, which emerged in the middle of the question, is that they are subject to the triennial review of stakes and prizes, which has just been launched. The Responsible Gambling Trust is just launching the largest ever consultation into the effect of FOBTs. If, as I suspect, it shows that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, that problem it will be addressed.

Mr Speaker: The Minister rightly implies that there was an elastic interpretation of what constitutes sport. We will leave it at that for the time being.

Clive Efford: Today’s report by Ofsted on sport in schools calls on the Government to devise
	“a new national strategy for PE and school sport that builds on the successes of school sport partnerships”.
	Those partnerships have been totally undermined by this Government. It is unacceptable that six months after the Olympics, we are still waiting for the Government to deliver a coherent sports strategy. If they continue to delay, they will fail the generation that we should be inspiring. How many more damning reports need to be published before the Minister gets it and the Government deliver the sporting legacy that our children deserve?

Hugh Robertson: First, the Opposition spokesman should not conflate sport legacy with a school sport policy. He is well aware that the sport legacy is going extraordinarily well. He tends never to mention that 1.75 million people are now playing sport who were not playing sport at the time of the bid. There is also a range of international events, and around the globe 14 million extra children have been touched by sport.
	If the hon. Gentleman is going to criticise sport provision on the back of the Ofsted report, he should wake up to the fact that it covers 2008 to 2012—throughout the period in which the school sport partnerships were operating. If he wishes to see them reintroduced, he has to explain to the House and others how they would be funded, about which we have heard not a jot from the Opposition since the election.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Graham Allen. Not here.

Non-league Football

David Mowat: What steps her Department is taking to encourage the development of non-league football clubs.

Hugh Robertson: We have been clear, along with the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, that we expect the Football Association to reform the governance of the game as a top priority. As part of that, we expect the FA to show representative, accountable and strategic leadership and help develop football across all levels including the grass-roots, non-league and professional parts of the game.

David Mowat: I declare an interest as a director of Warrington Town football club, which would not exist were it not for dozens of donors and unpaid volunteers. Other non-league clubs are going bust, yet 50% of the money from our national team continues to be diverted to the professional game, which is really very wealthy. The Select Committee has mentioned that problem. Will the Minister update us on the progress towards fixing that allocation?

Hugh Robertson: There is a fine dividing line here, because it is not for the Government to tell the sport how to allocate money that it raises itself any more than it would be for us to allocate the England and Wales Cricket Board’s broadcast income or the Rugby Football Union’s income from Twickenham. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the issue. If we can get the reforms at the FA that we and the Select
	Committee are pushing for, they will empower the board to take precisely the decisions that he advocates instead of relying on an arbitrary 50% split.

Ian Lavery: Non-league football is the bedrock of our beautiful game, and as the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) said, many community clubs face extinction. Bedlington Terriers, a community club in my area, faces a very uncertain future. How will the Government engage with the Premier League to ensure that the vast riches trickle down to assist the survival of non-league community clubs?

Hugh Robertson: The Government are doing a number of things, and I entirely take the hon. Gentleman’s point. This is one of the key things that we discuss regularly with the Premier League, the Football League and the FA. The FA, of course, receives one of the largest whole sport plan funding awards of more than £30 million, which is there precisely for the development of the game and to encourage more people to play football. He makes a good point, and we will address it in the reform process.

Departmental Administrative Expenditure

Philip Hollobone: What her Department’s administrative expenditure was in 2010; and how much that expenditure will be in 2015.

Maria Miller: My Department will have cut its original administration expenditure by 50% in real terms between 2010 and 2015, from £50 million to £27 million, while continuing to deliver across its full range of activities, including a successful Olympic and Paralympics games. Its actual administration budget will have risen from £50 million in 2010 to £55 million in 2015 as a result of the transfer of functions from other Departments.

Philip Hollobone: In these tough times, private sector firms and public sector and voluntary organisations in the Kettering constituency are having to do more with less. Will my right hon. Friend insist that her Department is unrelenting in driving down its unnecessary administrative expenditure all the way through to 2015, to give the British taxpayer the best deal?

Maria Miller: I can give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance. Across the board, all areas are expected to make the savings that I know he and his constituents would expect us to, whether within the original DCMS functions or in the new responsibilities that the Department has taken on—those from the Government Equalities Office and telecoms responsibilities from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. That includes reducing accommodation costs from £4.9 million in 2010 to £3.6 million this year.

Minimum Wage

Stella Creasy: whether her Department and arm’s-length bodies pay at least the minimum wage to all staff, including interns; and what steps she is taking to encourage the payment of at least the minimum wage to such interns.

Maria Miller: It is departmental policy to pay at least the national minimum wage to all employees, including interns.

Stella Creasy: The British Film Institute is due to review its policy on internships at the beginning of March. Will the Secretary of State commit to writing to it to encourage it to pay its interns so that the opportunities this publicly funded body provides are available to all without financial support?

Maria Miller: The important thing for the hon. Lady to recognise is that work experience and internships are an incredibly helpful way for young people to get into employment, and evidence from the Department for Work and Pensions backs that up. The hon. Lady will know that the BFI wants to ensure that work experience is available to people from a cross-section of society, and it has advertised its internships in such as way as to ensure that happens.

Mobile Telephone Coverage

John Glen: what steps her Department is taking to improve mobile telephone coverage across the UK.

Edward Vaizey: Only 0.3% of the UK population is not served by any mobile network operators. The mobile infrastructure project is addressing up to 60,000 premises in total, including not spots and the 10 roads announced in the 2012 Budget. When 4G services come on stream they should go to at least 98% of homes.

John Glen: I thank the Minister for that response. Mobile 4G will be increasingly important in rural communities such as those around Salisbury. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s latest thinking on securing better access to BT networks by mobile operators, as that will be vital to the cost and speed of 4G mobile internet connection experienced across the UK, particularly in rural communities?

Edward Vaizey: We look across the piece at ensuring that we remove any regulatory obstacles to the roll-out of mobile phone infrastructure. As my hon. Friend points out, getting backhaul for mobile phone masts is incredibly important, and I would be happy to hear his concerns. We do, of course, work constructively with Ofcom and BT to ensure that that is effective.

Alan Reid: I am pleased with the progress that the Government are making and the Minister’s commitment. In a vastly spread out rural area such as Argyll and Bute, many communities do not have access to mobile phone coverage. Will the Minister tell the House when he hopes to appoint a supplier for the mobile infrastructure project?

Edward Vaizey: I understand that we have gone out to tender for the procurement of the mobile infrastructure project, so we should hear some good news in the spring.

Silent Calls

Cathy Jamieson: what steps she is taking to tackle silent calls; and if she will make a statement.

Edward Vaizey: Under the Communications Act 2003, the Office of Communications —Ofcom—has responsibility for tackling silent and abandoned calls through its persistent misuse powers. It has an ongoing enforcement programme targeted at companies that breach those rules and can issue a penalty of up to £2 million. In the previous year, Ofcom issued fines of £810,000.

Cathy Jamieson: I thank the Minister for that answer, but many of my constituents, and those of other hon. Members, say that despite registering with the Telephone Preference Service, they still receive silent and other nuisance calls. Will the Minister meet concerned MPs so that we can discuss some of those issues and look at what more can be done to help stop constituents suffering that nuisance?

Edward Vaizey: I have already met a number of MPs to discuss the issue and I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady and any hon. Members she wishes to bring with her. I share her concerns. This is important and there are two regulators—Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office—and I meet them regularly to discuss this issue. I would happily bring them to the meeting.

City of Culture

David Amess: when she expects a decision to be made on which city will be named 2017 UK city of culture.

Edward Vaizey: We expect to announce the result of the competition for UK city of culture 2017 in November.

David Amess: Although I fully appreciate that my hon. Friend must go through the formalities of the bidding process as to which city should be city of culture in 2017, he could save his time and the work of his officials by announcing now that Southend should be the city of culture.

Edward Vaizey: The cultural delights of Southend are well known: the Pier Cultural Centre, Priory Park bandstand and, of course, the Cliffs Pavilion where tonight Billy Fury’s Tornados will be playing. No doubt they will perform “Last night was made for love”.

Bob Russell: Will the Minister accept, however, that Colchester is clearly the cultural capital of Essex, and therefore that Colchester should have the title of city of culture?

Edward Vaizey: I acknowledge Colchester’s important cultural value, which has been acknowledged since the Romans arrived.

Arm’s Length Bodies: Appointments

Tristram Hunt: What recent assessment she has made of the process by which public appointments to her Department’s arm’s length bodies are made.

Hugh Robertson: Ministerial public appointments to my Department’s arm’s length bodies are made on merit, under fair, open and transparent processes, regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments under the commissioner’s code of practice.

Tristram Hunt: I thank the Minister for his answer, but there is a crisis in the museum and arts sector as a result of political interference and incompetence in Downing street—a number of heritage bodies and museums have waited months for decisions on trustee appointments only to have them vetoed by a busy-body Prime Minister on political grounds. Will he tell the Prime Minister to butt out of matters of which he has no knowledge and stop gerrymandering our cultural institutions?

Hugh Robertson: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, all such appointments are made under very strict Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments guidelines and can be challenged. In the appointments for which I have been responsible, we have worked extensively across boundaries. We appointed the former Minister with responsibility for the Olympics to the Olympics board and I kept the former Minister with responsibility for sports as a trustee of the football foundation. That arrangement was not extended to the Conservative party when it was in opposition.

Topical Questions

Karl Turner: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Maria Miller: Mr Speaker, I am sure it has not escaped your notice that today is local digital radio switchover day in Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, meaning better local radio services for local residents, including those in your constituency. I also welcome the One Billion Rising campaign, which is today highlighting the importance of eliminating violence against women and girls around the country.
	Just to take the Valentine’s theme a little further, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport ministerial team are very much in love with the musical artists who achieved success in the recent Grammys—Adele, and Mumford and Sons—and with Daniel Day-Lewis, who triumphed at the British Academy of Film and Television Arts awards.

Karl Turner: Will the Minister explain why my excellent local radio station BBC Radio Humberside has to axe jobs at the bottom, while nationally the BBC continues to employ hundreds of executives, many of whom are paid more than the Prime Minister?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of local radio in our constituents’ lives, but the BBC makes the decisions on how it uses its money. I am sure it has heard loudly his comments. He will welcome the appointment of his former right hon. Friend James Purnell to a prominent position in the BBC—perhaps he will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

Andrew Stephenson: News in January that Seedhill athletics track and fitness centre in Nelson has been awarded a £50,000 grant by Sport England to resurface the running track followed similarly great news for Colne and Nelson rugby club, Belvedere and Calder Vale sports club, and Pendle Forest sports club. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating all the volunteers involved in those excellent Pendle sports clubs on securing their part of the Olympic legacy?

Hugh Robertson: I join my hon. Friend with pleasure in congratulating those volunteers. I should add to his excellent question by saying that more than 1,000 local community sports clubs have benefited from funding under Places People Play. The funding was made available by the reforms to the lottery introduced by this Government and opposed by the Labour party.

Harriet Harman: With the Arts Council cut by 30%; with regional development agencies, which did so much to support the arts in the regions, abolished; with arts donors smeared as tax dodgers; with the Education Secretary trying to squeeze arts out of the curriculum; and with local government, especially in hard-pressed areas, which does so much to support arts in local communities, facing the biggest cuts in a generation, does the Secretary of State not realise that it is her job to fight for the arts for everyone? Will she therefore withdraw her shameful assertion that the arts community is disingenuous and that its fears are pure fiction?

Maria Miller: The right hon. and learned Lady will know that the arts and culture in this country are at the heart not just of making this a great place to live, but of the growth strategy. That is the work that our Department is doing. It is important to show that arts and culture are not just on the periphery, but at the heart of making this a great country. I am glad she has decided to show an interest in this area—I welcome that. I hope she will underline the importance of sending messages to local authorities such as those in Newcastle that the arts are important.

Mel Stride: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Devon and Somerset county councils on recently signing a new contract for superfast broadband? I urge him to bring forward any announcements about future and remaining available funding so that momentum is maintained.

Edward Vaizey: We were delighted with the procurement for Devon and Somerset, which is
	one of the largest programmes under the rural broadband scheme. We hear what my hon. Friend says, and we will do anything we can to help him in any way he wishes.

Paul Flynn: A middle-aged constituent of mine, with no previous history of gambling, lost her family’s life savings after being seduced by clever marketing by a television gambling programme. There is a new pestilence of high-speed, high-stakes gambling that has cost my constituents in Newport West at least £2 million. What are the Government doing to stop it?

Hugh Robertson: The hon. Gentleman raises concerns that are felt by a number of hon. Members across the House. The Responsible Gambling Trust has primacy in this area and is in the process of conducting the largest piece of academic research ever undertaken. If further action needs to be taken as a consequence—he and many other hon. Members have made this point powerfully—then the Government will take that action.

Marcus Jones: I hear from many constituents who are subjected to a barrage of unsolicited telephone calls on a daily basis, despite the fact that they are registered with the telephone preference service. Will my hon. Friend undertake to look carefully into this situation, because it is causing a great deal of stress and anxiety, particularly to my elderly constituents?

Edward Vaizey: I completely understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. If he wants to come to the meeting I arranged earlier, I would be delighted to have him. We need to crack down on this and we are working closely with the two regulators involved.

Alison Seabeck: As an Essex girl born and bred, I urge the Minister not to be swayed by the hon. Members for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) and for Southend West (Mr Amess). May I instead invite him to taste the delights, and to look at the art and culture, of Plymouth?

Edward Vaizey: I would be absolutely delighted, and I have indeed visited the theatre in Plymouth in the past.

David Amess: Will my right hon. Friend visit the Jubilee Room on 4 March, where she will see at first hand just how wonderful Southend is? She will learn that the only way is Essex in terms of culture, media and sport.

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is a very persuasive Member of Parliament, and I am sure that as many MPs as possible will be there.

Meg Hillier: Tomorrow marks the start of London fashion week. Are the Government willing to work with the British Fashion Council, which is announcing a mapping exercise of manufacturing in the industry to help to support jobs and growth for all of our constituents?

Edward Vaizey: I understand that the hon. Lady secured an important debate on fashion this week. We support the British Fashion Council’s plans to carry out the mapping exercise, and I am working as hard as I can to see what Government support I can draw out.

John Glen: The Minister will be aware of the work of the Magna Carta cities of Salisbury and Lincoln to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the sealing of the Magna Carta. Will he meet Salisbury’s Magna Carta project team, including my distinguished predecessor Robert Key, to discuss the role of the British Library and UNESCO in planning for these important events?

Edward Vaizey: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. The anniversary of Magna Carta is extremely important. May I also use this opportunity to recall with great fondness my visit to one of the libraries in my hon. Friend’s constituency? I am so pleased that Wiltshire’s libraries are thriving.

Cathy Jamieson: Many remote rural communities in Scotland do not have access to any form of broadband, far less superfast broadband. What discussions has the Minister had recently with the Scottish Government to ensure that this issue is tackled effectively?

Edward Vaizey: We have made a large allocation of funding to the Scottish Government and they are in the lead on procuring broadband. Should there be any issues arising, however, we would be delighted to have any discussion they need.

Adrian Sanders: What discussions has the Minister’s Department had with the Department for Transport about rail links to seaside resorts in order to fulfil the coalition’s pledge in its tourism strategy?

Hugh Robertson: Access to resorts, particularly seaside resorts, is one of the key issues that will drive domestic tourism. The numbers are increasing considerably, but one of the great challenges facing domestic tourism is getting more tourists out of London and into coastal resorts. That is one of the issues we are seeking to address.

Barry Gardiner: I am sure the Minister will share my disappointment that libraries have become a political football between national and local government. Does he agree that perhaps the best way of safeguarding our libraries is to define more clearly what constitutes a statutory comprehensive library service?

Edward Vaizey: We have issued clear guidelines to local authorities based on the Charteris review, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that libraries should not be a political football. It is important that local authorities be free to make decisions about the future of their library services. The decisions taken by the Labour council in Brent were based on proposals that were six or seven years old and not related to cuts.

John Penrose: Does the tourism Minister have a view on recent proposals by the BAA to raise the per-passenger charges at Heathrow and does he have plans to make representations to other Whitehall Departments to address the potential effect on the tourism industry?

Hugh Robertson: Yes; as my hon. Friend is well aware, if money is raised in one area and there is a cut, it generally has to be found from somewhere else, and of course raising these duties has the perverse effect of encouraging people to take their holidays in this country. There is a balance to be struck, however, and that is what we are trying to do.

Pete Wishart: Next week, it is the Brit awards, when we will once again celebrate the massive success of our music industry. I am sure the Minister will be in his usual place. He will know of the usual challenges facing the music industry, particularly from illegal downloading and piracy. When can we expect to see the provisions agreed in the Digital Economy Act 2010?

Edward Vaizey: The Digital Economy Act was a good example of a piece of rushed legislation that was not properly scrutinised, but we are doing our best to get it back on track. There have been bumps in the road, but we continue to work with the music industry and the internet provider industries to crack down on advertising, payments and illegal piracy sites.

Philip Davies: I do not believe I have an interest to declare, but if anybody wishes to crawl over my register of interests and come to a different conclusion, I am happy for them to do so.
	Is it the Government’s plan to regulate and tax the gambling industry on a point-of-consumption basis? If so, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that the Gambling Commission is prevented from empire building and using that as an excuse to hike up its fees?

Hugh Robertson: As my hon. Friend will be well aware, the point of the proposed legislation is consumer protection and there are no plans at the moment for the Gambling Commission to increase its fees.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise to colleagues, but as usual demand has exceeded supply.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Working Mothers

Chi Onwurah: What steps she is taking to support working mothers. [R]

Maria Miller: We now have more women in work than ever before, using their skills to gain economic independence. To see
	sustainable economic growth, we need to ensure that working mothers can take advantage of the full range of opportunities available in the workplace. We continue to tackle the barriers that might prevent them from reaching their potential.

Chi Onwurah: The Secretary of State speaks warm words, but in Newcastle alone 1,768 women will be affected by the Government’s mummy tax. Low-paid new mums stand to lose £180 in maternity pay and more than £1,300 in total from the Government’s cuts to benefits and tax credits. We know that life is hard enough for working mums. In too many sectors, too many women do not return to work, and we lose their skills and contribution, so why are the Government making life even harder for them?

Maria Miller: I have to challenge the hon. Lady’s assertions. It is clear that the Government are giving women the tools and support to become economically independent. The facts speak loudly. This year, we will have taken more than 1 million out of tax altogether. That is the sort of action we want to see—women coming out of tax, being lifted out of poverty and being given the tools to be economically independent.

Philip Hollobone: What working mothers need from employers most of all is flexibility, but employers find it difficult to be flexible when lots of working mothers are thrown into chaos, through no fault of their own, when schools are closed during snowy weather. As a nation, we are not tackling this problem nearly enough. Will my right hon. Friend hold discussions with the Department for Education to see whether we can nail this problem once and for all?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend makes the important point that, as working parents, we rely on certainty in regard to child care and to schools. The decision on whether a school is open is one for head teachers—they can assess things better on the ground—but his point is well made and I will certainly ensure that it is brought to the attention of my hon. Friends in the Department for Education.

Kate Green: Yesterday, six mothers wrote to The Guardian to object to the Government’s real-terms cuts to maternity pay and other pregnancy and child-related benefits. Having babies costs money, and low-paid mums are set to lose £1,300 during pregnancy and their baby’s first year as a result of the real-terms cut to statutory maternity pay, cuts to other pregnancy support and cuts to tax credits. The real-terms cut to SMP alone equates to the price of 24 nappies a week to a low-paid mum. The Prime Minister said that his Government would be the family-friendliest ever, but does not that promise sound hollow now that they are helping millionaires more than mums?

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady has to realise that, in a time of difficult economic circumstances, which is certainly what the coalition Government inherited, we have had to make some tough decisions. The tough decisions that we have made are about helping women into work, and helping them to get the skills they need to ensure that their families are financially independent. She will of course be aware that, in April 2011, the child element
	of the working tax credit was uprated by £180 above inflation, and that the reforms to the tax system have already set us on the path to taking 1 million women out of tax. Surely she should be supporting those changes.

Judicial Review: Disabled People

Grahame Morris: What recent discussions she has had with her ministerial colleagues on the effects on disabled people of the Government’s recent consultation on judicial review.

Esther McVey: I routinely meet my colleagues in Government to discuss the impact of policies on disabled people. Before Christmas, I met the Lord Chancellor to discuss areas of common interest.

Grahame Morris: I thank the Minister for her reply, but may I draw her attention to the chronic lack of funding that has led to a crisis in social care that is particularly affecting working-age disabled people? May I also draw her attention to the report “The Other Care Crisis”, produced by five leading disability charities? There has been a colossal 45% increase in applications for judicial reviews of local authority social care policies. Does she think it is acceptable to undermine the judicial review process for disabled people who are simply trying to get the social care that they need?

Esther McVey: There is no undermining of the judicial review process. In 1974, 160 applications were made, but last year alone, there were 11,000. Only about one in six of those applications was granted; fewer still were successful. We are ensuring that the right appeals proceed and that the unmeritous ones do not. This is about ensuring the integrity of the judicial review system and the smooth running of the legal process.

Fiona Mactaggart: A phenomenon that I see in my constituency is that private landlords are saying, “No housing benefit.” The Minister knows that it is illegal to say, “No blacks, no Irish” and so on, but disabled people are more likely to be dependent on housing benefit than other people. Does she believe that what those private landlords are doing is legal or illegal? If it is illegal, will she enable disabled people’s organisations to take cases through judicial review to stop the landlords doing it?

Esther McVey: Good local authorities work with good local landlords. As I have said, we will ensure that the correct cases go through. We want to ensure the integrity of the system, and those people who need to take cases to review will be able to do so. We are on the side of disabled people and we will ensure that their views are heard.

Violence against Women and Girls

Caroline Lucas: What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Education on measures to end violence against women and girls.

Jeremy Browne: There have been a number of recent discussions involving ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education on issues relating to ending violence against women and girls. These include a round-table with police and crime commissioners and the Local Government Association on local commissioning, and a round-table last month on ending female genital mutilation.

Caroline Lucas: The Minister for Women and Equalities has already welcomed the fact that 1 billion women are rising today, but does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the campaign wants the Government to do a lot more? Will he ensure that he works with the Education Secretary to make the prevention of violence against women and girls an integral part of education policy that is delivered in every school as part of the statutory curriculum, and will Ministers vote yes in today’s important debate?

Jeremy Browne: We welcome the campaign and the opportunity for the House to debate these issues at greater length later today. Schools are, of course, free to teach about issues such as sexual consent within personal, social and health education or in other lessons, and children can benefit enormously from high-quality education that helps them to make safe and informed decisions and choices. The DFE has conducted a review of PSHE and will publish its outcomes later this year.

Rehman Chishti: Will the Minister clarify whether there is a cross-departmental, multi-agency strategy for tackling the horrific practice of honour violence? How effective is this strategy?

Jeremy Browne: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to this abhorrent crime. He uses the commonly received expression, but I urge everybody to stop using it, as there is nothing honourable at all about this form of criminal activity. It is part of the overall approach that the Government are taking to try to combat violence against women and girls. He will know that the Government have ring-fenced nearly £40 million of stable funding up to 2015 for a range of tasks of this type, including for the area he has raised.

Yvette Cooper: It is “One Billion Rising” today, and the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) was simply not good enough. We have had too many warm words and too much waffle from Ministers on this subject. It is no good saying that schools are free to teach about sexual consent. All schools should be teaching our children and young people not to harm each other and to have respect for themselves. They should be teaching them that sexual violence is not normal. The Department for Education has blocked for three years any movement on legislation to introduce compulsory sex and relationship education with zero tolerance of violence in schools. It has been looking at it for three years and has done nothing. It must act. Will the Minister now support that action and our debate today on introducing compulsory sex and relationship education in schools to protect our children?

Jeremy Browne: I hear my Back Benchers saying, “What did you do?” The idea that this social problem began in May 2010 injects an unnecessarily partisan tone into an area that should be beyond party politics. Of course these matters are taught in schools right across the country. I am pleased that the campaign to reduce teenage relationship abuse, which has been effective and welcomed by people of all political persuasions, is being relaunched today. It will focus on what constitutes controlling and coercive behaviour. I hope it will have a compelling impact on boys in particular, but on teenagers of both sexes when they see that campaign.

Adrian Sanders: I am sure the Minister recognises the importance of cross-border co-operation in tackling organised crime such as the trafficking of women and girls. Will he do everything in his power to ensure that Britain continues to co-operate with our European partners on this important issue?

Jeremy Browne: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the need for international co-operation to combat all forms of crime, including the particular form of crime he brings to our attention. The Government are, of course, committed to working with other Governments all around the world to reduce serious and organised crime and its impact on the United Kingdom. That very much applies to other European countries as well.

Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Communities

Virendra Sharma: What steps she is taking to improve the position of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in the workplace.

Helen Grant: Tackling unemployment is a priority for this Government, and our approach is to support people according to individual needs. There are 3 million ethnic minority people employed in this country—far more than ever before—and we are determined that this progress will continue.

Virendra Sharma: The all-party parliamentary group on race and community report on ethnic minority female employment found that Pakistani and Bangladeshi women are particularly affected by unemployment, with unemployment rates of 20.5% compared with 6.8% for white women. Is it not high time that the Government revisited their colour blind approach to unemployment and started to take specific steps to support BME communities to access the labour market?

Helen Grant: The Government have provided a wide range of targeted support through Jobcentre Plus, the Work programme, the Youth Contract and our “get Britain working” measures. As a result of the increased flexibility that we have given to providers, interventions can be tailored to specific needs.

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Henry Smith: What progress she has made on the reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Helen Grant: We have completed many key aspects of our reform programme. We have appointed a dynamic new chair and a strong and diverse board, and have reached agreement on a budget. We want the Equality and Human Rights Commission to go from strength to strength, and to be one of our most valued and respected national institutions.

Henry Smith: What effect might the reform have on the commission’s status as an A-rated national human rights institution?

Helen Grant: We all want a strong and effective A-rated human rights institution, and that is what our reforms are intended to achieve. We engage in positive, ongoing dialogue with the international co-ordinating committee, and we will ensure that it continues.

Company Boards: Female Representation

Julian Smith: What steps she is taking to increase female representation on company boards. [R]

Jo Swinson: In 2010 we asked Lord Davies to review the obstacles preventing women from making it on to corporate boards. Following his report, a range of steps have been taken. They include a voluntary code of conduct for executive search firms, amendments to the UK corporate governance code, changes to narrative reporting, and the establishment of the Women’s Business Council. Over the past year, 38% of those appointed to the boards of FTSE 100 companies have been women.
	May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the arrival of his new baby daughter, who, for all we know, may be a board director of the future herself?

Julian Smith: I thank the Minister for her answer, and I congratulate the Government on the excellent work that they have done to increase the number of women on boards. May I urge them, however, to focus particularly on the pipeline in companies this year, and to encourage our UK corporate boards to engage in a robust discussion about child care, “keep in touch” days, and the big cliff that appears when women reach childbearing age?

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend is right. That is the point at which, for many women, it becomes very difficult to participate in the workplace at the same level as before. However, there is a great deal that employers can do to help both mums and dads to play a stronger role in the workplace. The Government’s “think, act, report” initiative is encouraging companies to think about what they can
	do not only to recruit the best women, but to retain and promote those women and ensure that their talent is nurtured all the way to the boardroom.

Valerie Vaz: Can the Minister confirm that since the publication of the Davies report the number of female executive directors has risen by only 1%? What do the Government intend to do about that?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady has rightly highlighted the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith). It is now easier for women to make faster progress towards becoming non-executive directors, but the executive route is also important. The Women’s Business Council is looking at all the different stages in women’s careers in considering what action can be taken, and we look forward to the publication of its report later this year. We are seeing progress in the right direction, but we must stay on top of the situation to ensure that it continues to improve.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. We are short of time, but I want to accommodate the question on religious belief.

Religious Belief

Anne McIntosh: What her plans are for equalities on the grounds of religious belief.

Maria Miller: We will continue to support religious freedoms strongly. For example, the Government believe that people should be able to wear crosses openly at work, and we are pleased about the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Eweida case. The right of people to manifest their religion or belief at work is a vital freedom.

Anne McIntosh: What weight is accorded to religious beliefs in draft legislation such as the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill? Should it not be equal, in the context of discrimination, to the weight accorded to gender?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend, who takes a keen interest in this issue, will know that religious freedom is guaranteed under article 9 of the European convention on human rights. However, just as it is right for people to be able to express their religious beliefs, people in this country have a right not to be discriminated against. The recent rulings in the European Court show that, in law, we have the balance about right.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Horsemeat

Mary Creagh: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on horsemeat in the UK food chain and joint police and Food Standards Agency action.

David Heath: The Secretary of State and I are providing the House with very regular reports on the adulteration of processed beef products with horsemeat. As the House will appreciate, it is not possible to give a running commentary on active investigations. Therefore, for operational reasons, we were unable to inform the House of the Food Standards Agency’s plan to enter the two meat premises in west Wales and west Yorkshire earlier this week. As part of its audit of all horse abattoirs in the UK and the ongoing investigation into the adulteration of meat products, the FSA gathered intelligence that led to it and the police entering the two meat premises and seizing horsemeat. The FSA also seized all paperwork from the two companies and is investigating customer lists. The FSA suspended activities at both plants immediately. The FSA will continue to work closely with the police, and if there is evidence of criminal activity, I will expect the full force of the law to be brought down on anyone involved.
	I met retailers and suppliers again yesterday, and they confirmed that they are on course to provide meaningful results from product testing by tomorrow. The Secretary of State has made a written ministerial statement today on the outcome of his successful discussions in Europe yesterday. The co-ordinated control plan proposed by the Commission is a welcome step to help address a pan-European problem.
	The FSA’s most recent tests for the presence of bute in horses slaughtered in the UK checked 206 horse carcases, and eight came back positive. Three may have entered the food chain in France, and the remaining five have not gone into the food chain. The FSA is working with the French authorities in an attempt to recall the meat from the food chain. I understand—I am sure that the House will be glad to hear this—that the results of bute testing in the withdrawn Findus products have come back negative. The chief medical officer and the chief executive officer of the FSA will be making a statement on both these matters later this morning.

Mary Creagh: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that statement. I am sure the whole House will welcome Tuesday’s raids by the FSA and the police. May I ask him whether all customers of the meat-processing plant have been contacted about the raid and alerted to a potential risk?
	I am glad that the FSA is investigating the concerns about horsemeat entering the food chain that I first raised with Ministers last month. Action must be taken to deal with any criminals whose activities have so badly damaged consumer confidence in the UK food industry. I raised the problem of bute-contaminated horsemeat being released into the human food chain with the Minister at Department for Environment, Food and
	Rural Affairs questions last month. What action did he take with the FSA to reassure himself after I raised those concerns? Was he aware of bute contamination before that day? Will he explain why, up until four days ago, all horses were being tested for bute in this country but were still being released for human consumption? I am astonished to hear that a further three could have entered the food chain in France, given that I raised this issue with him last month. That is astonishing. We were in the middle of a horsemeat adulteration scandal; this is just catastrophic complacency from him.
	It is totally unacceptable that all UK horses were being tested for bute at slaughter but still being released into the human food chain until four days ago. We know that, with more than 9,000 horses slaughtered in the UK for human consumption abroad last year, we must make sure that horsemeat intended for humans is not contaminated with bute—it really is as simple as that. So why did the Minister not act immediately when I raised this issue three weeks ago in this House? Why did he not order full testing, and order that horses should be released only when clear from bute, the moment I raised this with him? We need to know whether the horsemeat entering the UK in these adulterated products contained bute.
	Will the Minister tell the House whether the FSA has conducted its own tests on the Findus products to ensure that action can be taken through the criminal courts? Which other countries are testing their horsemeat lasagnes? Which other countries have received those horsemeat lasagnes? We hear from the media that they went to 16 countries, so why have they been withdrawn in only six countries—Britain, Ireland, France, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway? What has happened to the products in the other countries? Has the Minister sought or received reassurances from his EU counterparts that the products have been withdrawn in all EU countries?
	Yesterday, the Secretary of State travelled to Brussels for a meeting with his EU counterparts. That arch-Eurosceptic had a damascene conversion to EU labelling regulations on the way. He wants more of them, he wants them quickly and he wants the Commission to hurry up with them—so much speed when his Government have spent the past two years blocking Labour MEPs’ attempts to get better country of origin labelling for processed meats and ready meals. [Interruption.] They do not like hearing it, but they are all keen on it now, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: We are all very happy to hear that, but unfortunately the hon. Lady has already exceeded her time. I think a last sentence will suffice.

Mary Creagh: Is there not a danger with the EU testing that the most high-risk products will be withdrawn over the next three weeks and quietly disposed of? Yesterday, the Secretary of State said:
	“Nobody had a clue that there was adulteration of beef products”,
	yet the Government were told by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland that it was testing last November. It seems that he and his colleagues are just totally clueless.

David Heath: Listening to the hon. Lady, one would fail to understand that probably the biggest investigation into criminal behaviour that has ever been conducted
	across Europe is going on at the instigation of this Government and as a result of the actions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He instigated the meeting of Farming Ministers of the affected countries and the Commission, established Europol in a co-ordinating role, brought forward the labelling of ingredients for products as an emergency item within the EU, exchanged data at a speed that was never done under the Government whom the hon. Lady supported, brought forward an emergency meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health to consider probable thresholds, and got the matter on the agenda for Council on 25 February. That is a quite remarkable achievement in a very short time. The Government are committed to proper investigations based on evidence.
	Let me finish with one point raised by the hon. Lady—[Interruption.] If she would stop shouting at me, I will give her the answer. She raised the criminal investigations following her assertions in this House about phenylbutazone. She was repeatedly asked by the Food Standards Agency to share the information she purported to have and she refused to do so. I think that every citizen in this country has a duty to provide evidence to the relevant investigating authorities when there is evidence of potential criminal behaviour.

Mary Creagh: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order. We cannot have a point of order in the middle of the exchange. The hon. Lady can make a point of order later and I will of course hear it at the appropriate time.

Tony Baldry: Is not the hon. Lady’s difficulty the fact that in 2006, under the previous Labour Government, changes were made that led to there being no daily inspection presence in meat-cutting premises? As the House and the country listen to the hon. Lady, will they not become increasingly convinced that all this sound and fury is about drumming up shock-horror headlines rather than responsibly contributing to solving the problem?

David Heath: There is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman says. When I hear those on the Opposition Front Bench giving a critical analysis of the very arrangements they put in place as though they had been invented over the past few months, I find it difficult to take some of their criticisms seriously.

Kerry McCarthy: My concern is that this scandal is the tip of the iceberg and there is much more to be uncovered about what goes into our food and what is in the meat supply chain. Will the Minister assure me that the Government will learn the lessons from this episode and mount a wider investigation into those issues?

David Heath: The hon. Lady makes a good point. We need to get to the bottom of some of the supply chain issues across Europe. First, we need to deal effectively with the immediate problem, but then we need to stand back and take a long, hard look at some of the other practices. The retailers and processors in this country and across Europe also need to consider how they operate, because I am not convinced that they are as convinced as they ought to be of the provenance of some of their goods.

Anne McIntosh: Will my hon. Friend consider the July 2012 veterinary residues committee declaration that the horse passport of any horse treated with phenylbutazone should declare—and should be appropriately signed—that that horse should not enter the food chain? Is it the case, as at that time, that some vets are still prescribing bute without checking the passport or ensuring that the horse is subsequently signed out of the food chain?

David Heath: The hon. Lady raises a very important point. It is absolutely clear that the horse passport should show that a horse has been treated, and that horse is then not put into the food chain if it is inappropriate to do so. As I have looked at the situation, I have become more and more convinced that the horse passport system, which was introduced by the EU and implemented in this country by the previous Government, is not as effective as it should be, by a long way. Once we have dealt with the initial problem, we ought to look at the system again. I want to see an effective record of provenance for horsemeat, just as for any other animal. We have a very good system for cattle and sheep, but for horses the system is inadequate.

Andrew Miller: The whole House should take seriously the risk of phenylbutazone getting into the food chain. We should therefore be pleased to hear that the test results on one batch have come back negative, but of course there is an awful lot more horsemeat in circulation, some sourced in the UK and some sourced elsewhere. My concern, which I put directly to the Minister, stems from the very good report published by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee today. Where is the testing facility going to be? Is it adequate? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that there will be adequate investment in testing in this country?

David Heath: In this country, I think we now have the situation under control, but I am concerned that there are third-country imports of horsemeat into the European Union. That is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has secured an agreement across Europe that there will be bute testing in other countries for horsemeat coming in. It is important to note the chief medical officer’s advice—and the hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Science and Technology Committee, will be aware of the importance of this. It is clear that at low levels—and we are talking about low levels in horsemeat—there is a very low risk indeed that bute would cause any harm to health. Nevertheless, we need to eliminate it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. There is much interest but very little time, and so far exchanges have been too long. What we require is a model of brevity, to be exemplified by Mr Nicholas Soames.

Nicholas Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put together one of the biggest operations of its type ever in the European Union to secure a result across the whole of the European Union? Will he acknowledge that the use of bute is grossly exaggerated? It is used, but nothing like as much as is claimed.

David Heath: I do not resile from the fact that phenylbutazone should not be present in horsemeat that is presented for human consumption; let us be absolutely clear. However, my right hon. Friend is right to say that the actions that have now been put in place—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is at this moment at Europol and Eurojust in The Hague, securing police and justice co-ordination on this matter—are unprecedented. It is extremely welcome that European authorities are now getting to grips with the problem.

Grahame Morris: It is interesting that the Minister’s attitude has changed since the statement on Monday, when he was at pains to say that there was no risk to public health and that this was an issue of mislabelling and fraud. Clearly, when bute enters the food chain, it is a public health issue, and given that a very small percentage—1%—of carcases were tested, should not the Minister make an apology to the House?

David Heath: What I said, and have repeatedly said, is that there is no evidence of material that is harmful to human health having been put on sale in this country. That is still the case, and I am very glad that that is the case. We are testing for bute. That is the prime responsibility of the Food Standards Agency. It worries me sometimes that people seem to think that food safety is a secondary issue. It is not. It is the prime responsibility.

Mark Williams: Can my hon. Friend confirm whether the FSA has been able to contact all the businesses and retailers on the customer lists of the two raided properties, one of which is in my constituency?

David Heath: The FSA is examining the paperwork from those companies at the moment. I understand that some of it is a little difficult to interpret. I cannot give my hon. Friend a categorical assurance, because some of the meat present appears to have been unlabelled and therefore its destination is unknown. The FSA and the police are certainly taking every action they can, but at the moment they are examining the paperwork.

Barry Gardiner: Does the Minister share my astonishment that Tim Smith, who was chief executive of the FSA until only last year and who is now the technical director in charge of food standards at Tesco, is not only still in his job, but still on the FSA board? Some would say that is not just switching horses, but trying to ride both at the same time.

David Heath: I have to say that I am impressed by the degree of co-operation we are now seeing from the industry and all food businesses in the testing regime we have put in place, from which we hope to have meaningful results tomorrow. Who works for which company is not a matter for the Government or Ministers at the Dispatch Box, but whether we get results that reassure the public is a matter for us.

Mark Pritchard: Given the importance of this issue to all our constituents, will the Minister join me in calling on Her Majesty’s Opposition to work with the Government in the national interest to sort it out, rather than making cheap party political points?

David Heath: That would be a result devoutly to be wished.

Jim Shannon: The beef, lamb and pork sourced in the United Kingdom follows a strict traceability system. Farmers in the United Kingdom have experienced a marked decrease in their incomes over the past 12 months. Can the Minister confirm that costs accrued as a result of the horsemeat scandal will not be passed on to farmers or farming organisations?

David Heath: I hope that no costs will be directly apportioned to farmers, but the hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about the assurance schemes we have in this country, and not only those relating to the traceability of our meat, but the various assurances placed on top of that through schemes. I think that we have every reason to be proud of the quality of meat in this country, particularly cut meat, some of which is the best in the world. Of course, farmers in his part of the country play a leading role in providing that quality meat.

David Nuttall: In 2006 the Food Fraud Task Force identified the potential problem of food fraud and made 32 recommendations for dealing with it. Can the Minister explain to the House what action the previous Government took to implement any of those recommendations?

David Heath: I think that I am forbidden to give an opinion on the previous Government’s performance in response, but my hon. Friend will draw his own conclusions from the actions, or lack thereof, that took place at the time.

Kevin Brennan: In answering the question from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), the Minister said that there was a problem with horse passports and sought to blame the previous Labour Government for it. Does he remember what he told the House on 17 January? He said:
	“The hon. Lady seems to think that there is some difficulty with horse passports. I simply do not think that that is the case. I would happily set out the difference between the route for horses going to slaughter and the routes for others.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 1027.]
	Is not that symptomatic of his rather high-handed attitude, which has really irritated people, and does not it explain the Government’s flat-footedness at the beginning of the crisis?

David Heath: I humbly apologise if the hon. Gentleman is irritated, but I must say that we are continuing to do the work that is required—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister must be heard.

David Heath: There has been an attempt to bring the national equine database into this matter as though it were a panacea. That is not the case, and I have been consistent in saying so. Those who feel that a national equine database would have improved the situation are sadly mistaken. We need to look at the issue of horse passports, but we do not need to return to an issue that is frankly irrelevant to the situation in hand.

Tessa Munt: Phenylbutazone, known as bute, can be bought off the internet in tablet form, in injectable form, and as an apple and citrus-flavoured powder. Most horse owners believe that it is the only effective anti-inflammatory drug in controlling joint pain. It is so easy for owners to get hold of it that I wonder what the Minister might have in the way of proposals to ensure that there is some integrity to the system. Does he agree that testing is the only way of identifying the use of this drug?

David Heath: I do not want to move away from the position that it is crucial to understand: it is the responsibility of those who are selling products and those who are processing products to obey the law, which is very clear that a horse that has had phenylbutazone administered to it should not be entering the food chain. We have a regulatory issue as to whether the horse passport system across Europe is sufficient to meet that task, and that is what we are addressing. It would not be helpful to people who own horses across Europe to say that they cannot use a very useful anti-inflammatory drug; rather, we need to say, “If you do that, don’t put it on people’s plates.”

Seema Malhotra: Following the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), will the Minister now confirm what action he had taken to deal with bute before she raised concerns with him on the Floor of the House on 24 January?

David Heath: I have already explained that phenylbutazone is a well-known issue and that it is one of the things that is looked for at the point of slaughter, particularly through the horse passport system. I have also said that there may be deficiencies in the horse passport system that we need to address—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) is shouting at me from a sedentary position. I do not think that is helpful to a serious discussion of the subject. [Interruption.]

Neil Carmichael: rose—

Mr Speaker: I call Neil Carmichael. The hon. Gentleman should not look so surprised; he was standing up, and we wish to hear him.

Neil Carmichael: With all the cheering, Mr Speaker, I could not quite hear you.
	Does the Minister agree that this is really all about the exposure of a very significant deception whereby the rule of law has been broken? Does he also agree that it is important that he has discussions with his European colleagues about bringing in mechanisms to stop it happening again, especially through making sure that the supply chain is properly transparent?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman summates the whole position very well. The most important thing is to have effective investigation, to find the evidence, and on the basis of that evidence, to take action, and that is what we are doing.

Angela Smith: May I ask the Minister for a simple answer to a simple question: when did he order that horse carcases should
	be released from abattoirs after they had been found to be clean of bute?
	[
	Interruption.
	]

David Heath: The hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) says helpfully, “It’s in the folder.” [Interruption.] We have had rather a lot of dates in our heads in this unfolding situation, and I make no apologies for not being able to give—[Interruption.] I cannot find the date in here. I am not going to give the hon. Lady a wrong answer; I will find it and tell her later.

Laura Sandys: Looking to the future, we really have to put the consumer at the heart of food safety and food health. When we bring forward the review of EU labelling, can we ensure that my constituents are able to understand what is in their food and do not need a degree in food science to know what they are eating?

David Heath: The hon. Lady raises a really important point—that food labelling is supposed to help, not confuse the consumer. That is why we are trying to make sure that the food labelling system is not only accurate—that goes without saying—but that it gives people information that is useful, not confusing. There will be talk about excluding information that, frankly, simply confuses the consumer. We have a consultation at the moment about the labelling of mince. I do not think it is helpful to call mince sold in this country as it always has been anything other than mince. I think that that is helpful to the consumer, not unhelpful.

Madeleine Moon: Although the whole House will welcome the Minister’s belated recognition of the importance of horse passports, may I suggest that he talks to the Labour-led Welsh Assembly Government, who have been looking at this issue for some time and who recognise the importance of accurate passporting to control the movement of horses across Wales?

David Heath: We regularly speak to our colleagues in the devolved Administrations. Indeed, I spoke only yesterday to my ministerial counterpart in Wales. We regularly exchange information on these matters and come to common views wherever possible.

Roger Williams: Food safety and quality is an international matter and we need collaboration across borders. When criminal activity is involved, Europol has a particularly important role to play. Will the Minister ensure that we identify where this horsemeat came from in order to verify, for instance, that it was not slaughtered on unlicensed premises?

David Heath: That is why we need a European-wide criminal investigation and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is at The Hague today talking to Europol. Europol can act only if requested to do so by member states, and the UK has made such a request, in company with Mr Le Foll, the French Minister. That is why it is proceeding and I think that that will add a lot of co-ordination to what otherwise might be a fragmented police investigation.

Diana Johnson: It is reported in today’s press that the Food Safety Authority of Ireland told the FSA about its concerns in
	November 2012. I ask the Minister again: when where Ministers first told about this problem? Perhaps the answer is in his folder, if he would care to look at it.

David Heath: We have said all along that there is co-ordination between the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the FSA. We have also said—the hon. Lady can look back at the record of it—that the Irish were not acting on the basis of an intelligence-led operation, so there was no prior information. They did spot checks and told us that they were going to do so. As soon as they had confirmed results, they told the FSA and the FSA told Ministers. That is all a matter of record.

Sam Gyimah: Confidence in the food supply chain is key and it is retailers who bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the safety of the food they sell. What assurances has my hon. Friend sought from retailers about the integrity of the supply chain networks?

David Heath: That is very much the basis of our discussions with them over the past couple of weeks. Indeed, such discussions took place yesterday and earlier in the week. We are absolutely clear that retailers bear the legal responsibility. When I say retailers, that should be extended to all food businesses, such as caterers. They must be confident in the integrity of their supply chains. We will do everything we can to provide regulatory support for that, so that cases in which they are defrauded are brought to light. The crux is that they must have both assured provenance and a testing regime in their own companies so that they can, with confidence, tell consumers that the meat on their shelves is both what they say it is and safe.

Wayne David: The Minister mentioned the work that is being done at a European level, especially through Europol. Does he agree, therefore, that it is deeply ironic—in fact, it is profoundly worrying—that at this very time the Government are considering a mass opt-out from European justice and home affairs provisions, including the work of Europol?

David Heath: I can only say that at the moment we have the services of Europol. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is using those services very effectively. He is leading that request today and we will make sure that on a pan-European basis we deal with what is a pan-European issue.
	May I reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)? She asked for a date, but I did not want to give her the wrong one, because my memory may be fallible. It was Monday 11 February.

Aidan Burley: What my constituents want to know is simply whether it is safe to eat processed beef products that are currently on sale. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) has spread huge fear by saying that she would not eat products that are currently on sale. What is the advice of the chief medical officer and the independent Food Standards Agency on this matter?

David Heath: The advice is very clear. All the testing that has taken place has failed to find evidence of food that is a danger to human health. Therefore, the clear advice is that there is no reason to change shopping habits on the basis of concerns about health. I prefer people to take their own decisions on these matters on the basis of evidence and information. That is an individual decision and it is not helpful for people to pretend that there is a massive food health scare if there is not, and nor is it helpful for people to give reassurances that are not supported by evidence.

Andrew Gwynne: I am amazed that the Minister could not remember what happened on Monday, given that it was only three days ago. In the last year, a large number of horses have been slaughtered in UK abattoirs for meat. What estimate has his Department made of the occurrence of bute in those horses?

David Heath: That is precisely what the FSA is testing and producing results on. As I have said, the chief medical officer will be giving a statement about that later this morning.
	The hon. Gentleman says that he is amazed that I cannot remember what happened on Monday. I can remember what happened on Monday, but I am not going to stand at the Dispatch Box and give a date if I might find that I have mistakenly misled the House. I would prefer to give correct information to the House than wrong information. I am sorry if that offends Members.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am keen to accommodate the remaining colleagues because there are not many of them, but I trust that they will be brief. The master class is to be provided by Mr Philip Hollobone.

Philip Hollobone: My constituents in Kettering will be surprised at the extent to which meat products are cut, processed and reprocessed back and forth across so many international borders. Might one of the benefits of this episode be that consumers value local farmers markets that provide high-quality meats sourced from local farmers?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. I hope that people value locally sourced produce, and there is evidence that they do so. People value local butchers shops that know the provenance of the produce. They also value the quality assurance schemes that we have in this country, which indicate a high quality of produce.

Stephen Metcalfe: Families in Basildon and Thurrock have been defrauded in the food that they have bought. Does the Minister share my anger that the retailers have allowed that to happen?

David Heath: We should all be outraged that people have been given meat that is not as described on the packet. The Government stand four-square with the
	consumer who goes into the shop and buys the product, and say, “This will not do.” It is unacceptable and those who have allowed it to happen, whether through insufficient checking or criminal activity, must be brought to book.

Kris Hopkins: People across west Yorkshire will be outraged that horsemeat has entered the food chain labelled as beef. Will the Minister reassure consumers that the individuals who are carrying out this criminal activity will be prosecuted?

David Heath: Ministers cannot give assurances on what the police and investigatory authorities will do. It is certainly my wish that wherever there is evidence of criminal activity, it is put before the courts and the people responsible are prosecuted and face the full force of the law.

Marcus Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that for the Labour party to criticise the testing regime that we inherited from it is pure, naked opportunism?

David Heath: There is an awful lot of opportunism around at the moment.

Andrew Stephenson: Many British farmers are concerned by those who are touring the TV studios at the moment saying that they would not eat any beef products in this country. What does the Minister think retailers, who have ultimate responsibility for ensuring food safety, should be doing to reassure their consumers?

David Heath: In the first instance, what they should be doing is exactly what they are doing at our request: testing every processed beef product that they have on their shelves and sharing with us the results so that we can provide advice independently, through the FSA, on the level of substitution that has occurred. However,
	they have to go further than that and examine their supply chains. They have to be able to reassure their customers of the value of the systems that they have in place, and I hope that having taken the initial action, they will soon be in a position to do exactly that and to tell every person who walks through the doors of their stores where a product comes from and that it has been tested and is what it says it is.

Julian Smith: The fact is that we have the most fantastic food and agriculture industry in this country, and confidence is key to it. Does the Minister agree that the headline-grabbing hysteria of Opposition Front Benchers does nothing to help the confidence that this great British industry requires?

David Heath: I am not going to criticise anyone for expressing proper concerns on behalf of their constituents, but I will criticise those who peddle part-truths or untruths, which is profoundly unhelpful. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) expresses surprise, but the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) had to come back and apologise only this week for saying something grossly wrong about the number of horses unaccounted for in Ulster.

Rehman Chishti: Will the Minister clarify that it was the changes put in place in 2006 that took away the daily inspection presence in meat-cutting premises?

David Heath: This is one of the problems—apparently the world only started in 2010 and all the things that were done before then did not count, and apparently the system that was in place in 2010 was so perfect that it has only been downhill since. That is not a credible position, and those who purport to speak for the people of this country should come up with a credible position.

Point of Order

Mary Creagh: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Order. I will take the point of order, and any response if the Minister wishes to respond, but I must emphasise that that will be that. We are not having a whole debate on the issue that arose at the start of the urgent question.

Mary Creagh: I would like to set the record straight—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I say to Members who are shrieking that they should cease doing so. Mr Burley, you are now eagerly consulting your BlackBerry or iPhone, and that may be a more profitable activity for you than shouting from a sedentary position. Let me make it clear that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) will be heard, and the Minister will be heard, without unnecessary distractions.

Mary Creagh: I would like to give the Minister the opportunity to set the record straight. He is right that I received last Friday the names of three UK companies suspected as passing off horse as beef. I immediately e-mailed and wrote to the Secretary of State, on that day, offering to share the information with him. I received a response from him on Monday asking me to hand it over. He was obviously unaware that I had already handed it over to the FSA on Saturday, and that it had reassured me that it was already in possession of those names. Will he now withdraw the disgraceful slur and apologise to me?

David Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have here the e-mail exchange between the FSA’s director of operations and the hon. Lady. He repeatedly requests further information and evidence on the comments that she made in the House, and her reply is:
	“I am very anxious to protect my source from any repercussions.”
	She then seeks to bargain with the FSA for further information before releasing her information. I am happy to put that into the public domain if it would help, but I think my comments were entirely justified.

Mr Speaker: Order. I said that was that, and Members can pursue the matter in other forums if they wish. I am grateful to Members for their co-operation.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 25 February—Second Reading of the Children and Families Bill.
	Tuesday 26 February—Remaining stages of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of opposed private business nominated by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
	Wednesday 27 February—Opposition Day (18th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish Nationalist party, subject to be announced, followed by motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Bank of England Act 1998 (Macro-prudential Measures) Order 2013.
	Thursday 28 February—Debate on a motion relating to the Kesri Lehar campaign for the abolition of the death penalty in India, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the 25th anniversary of the Kurdish genocide. The subjects for those debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 1 March—Private Members’ Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 4 March will include:
	Monday 4 March—Second Reading of the Financial Services (Banking Reform Bill).
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 28 February will be:
	Thursday 28 February—Debate on the Communities and Local Government Select Committee report on the European Regional Development Fund, followed by a debate on nuisance phone calls.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. The Opposition welcome the decision of the Backbench Business Committee to schedule a debate this afternoon on violence against women and girls. The campaign states that three quarters of a million children witness acts of domestic abuse every year, and that one third of girls in relationships aged between 13 and 17 have experienced physical or sexual violence. Shockingly, one in three women will be beaten or raped in her lifetime. Today’s debate coincides with a series of actions across the UK as part of the One Billion Rising global campaign. Will the Leader of the House join me in fully supporting that campaign?
	One of the first actions of the Work and Pensions Secretary after the election was to abolish Labour’s future jobs fund. The Prime Minister then went around claiming that it was
	“one of the most ineffective jobs schemes there’s been.”
	However, an assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions of the future jobs fund, published by this Government, said that it was one of the most successful and cost-effective schemes ever.
	Yesterday the Government had to rush emergency regulations through the House after the courts ruled the Government’s Work programme illegal. For most people
	looking for work, however, what matters most is the assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions of the Work programme, which concluded that the current scheme is “worse than doing nothing”. The Government blundered in scrapping the future jobs fund and setting up the Work programme. The Work and Pensions Secretary was happy to attack the courts in yesterday’s newspapers, but he has not come to the House. May we have a statement from the Work and Pensions Secretary on the future of the Work programme?
	Last week at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister claimed that the bedroom tax “is not a tax.” This week the Government Chief Whip apparently e-mailed Conservative backbenchers:
	“Please could all colleagues refer to underoccupancy and not the bedroom tax?”
	You can change the name but you cannot change the facts. This April the bedroom tax will hit those at the bottom, while at the same time the Government are handing out a huge tax cut to those at the top. That is what the Chancellor decided to do in his previous Budget. After the omnishambles of the previous Budget it was reported this week that the Chancellor has retreated to his country house to pore over Budget plans with Conservative party staff to try to do a better job next time.
	May I make a constructive suggestion? Before the Government get themselves into another fine mess, the Leader of the House could arrange for the Chancellor to make a statement next week so that he can U-turn on the bedroom tax and U-turn on the tax cut for millionaires. It is hardly as though the Government do not know how to U-turn: new figures show that since the election they have announced a U-turn every 29 days. Given that the Education Secretary U-turned on GCSEs this time last week, I calculate that the next Government U-turn is due on 8 March. As 8 March is a Friday and not a sitting day, will the Leader of the House arrange for his colleagues to bring forward the next U-turn to a day when the House is sitting?
	Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Harold Wilson, who 50 years ago today was elected leader of the Labour party? He was a Member of the House for almost 40 years and led the Labour party for 13 years. He was Prime Minister for more than seven years. Government Members might reflect on the fact that, after the February 1974 election, Harold Wilson chose to lead a minority Government rather than go into coalition with the Liberals. He went on to win the subsequent election later that year.
	Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Deputy Prime Minister, who managed a brief appearance on his weekly London phone-in this morning from Mozambique? I can only conclude that he has gone to Mozambique to help the Liberal Democrats in the Eastleigh by-election. Yesterday, the Chancellor went to Eastleigh, which will also help the Liberal Democrats. As Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs fight it out in Eastleigh, there is only one thing to say: things can only get better.
	The coalition has been going through a rough time. Relationships are strained. As all good marriage guidance says, when a relationship hits tough times, you need to get the romance back—put a bit of spice back into it and have a bit of fun. It is Valentine’s day, so in that
	spirit may I suggest to the Leader of the House that Conservative MPs should be encouraged to take out a Liberal Democrat colleague—for a suitably expensive Valentine’s day meal?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. I join her in expressing support for the One Billion Rising campaign. She will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities said earlier in Question Time. She will have a further opportunity in the debate this afternoon to express support. I welcome the debate and the focus it rightly puts on that important issue.
	I was quite surprised that Harold Wilson was the subject of a programme on Channel 4 on the eve of Valentine’s day. It was not an obvious choice. I remember Harold Wilson because he addressed the first political meeting I attended—in 1966, at Abbs Cross school in Hornchurch. That was in the good old days, when I was politically neutral and 10 years old.
	We must be careful with Valentine’s day references. I read an interview with the Leader of the Opposition in The Guardian this morning. In telling us about the nature of his Valentine’s day evening—a Chinese takeaway, followed by what he describes as “a surprise”—I fear he provided us with altogether too much information.
	I tried to detect questions about business from the hon. Lady, but I am not sure there were any. A written ministerial statement on the Work programme and the Wilson and Reilly court case was made on Tuesday. It is clear that the courts did not quash the principle of the scheme—the problem was the structure of the technical regulations and how they worked. We put down regulations to put that right for the future, and we will continue to contest the Court of Appeal’s decision. That is a matter for the courts and not, for the moment, for this House.
	The hon. Lady asked about the under-occupancy charge, but the Government rest on the facts. The simple facts, which we have discussed in business questions and at Prime Minister’s questions, are that, under the previous Government, Labour Members were perfectly content for an under-occupancy deduction to be applied to housing benefit in the private sector, but somehow find it impossible to read that across into the social housing sector. They fail to recognise—the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) made this point well in yesterday’s debate—that hundreds of thousands of homes are under-occupied, and we have a million and a half people on the social housing waiting list and need to ensure that there are incentives to use social housing stock to the best effect. Those are simple facts.
	An additional simple fact is that we have to recognise that housing benefit, at £23 billion, pretty much doubled under the previous Government and we have to control that. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) sat in the debate yesterday and failed to recognise what he said when he left government, which was that there was no money left. It is curious that outside the House Labour Members seem willing to accept that. The head of their party’s policy review, the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) said just last night:
	“The money is not there and everyone knows that.”
	They have to recognise that they left us in an economic mess, and the head of their policy review says that they have to start by saying sorry for that. If their leader does not start saying sorry, they will not be able to participate in debates—as was clear yesterday—with any credible response. Their leader has gone off to Bedford and their policy review is described as a work in progress. Of course, when one is in Bedford one thinks of “The Pilgrim’s Progress”. I have to say that the Leader of the Opposition has yet to reach his slough of despond.

Caroline Nokes: In the village of Barton Stacey there is serious concern about the speed at which the Ministry of Defence is disposing of property and land, which is preventing local residents from having enough time to establish a community initiative to buy some of it for public open space. May I ask the Leader of the House for time to debate MOD property disposal, so that other communities might have the opportunity that has been denied to Barton Stacey?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point in relation to her constituency. Members across the House recognise that in the midst of the necessity to make proper disposal of surplus land right across the public estate, we want to do so in a way that recognises community interests and the views of local communities, and responds to them. I will raise this issue with my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence. She may wish to note that Ministers will be here for Defence questions on Monday 25 February, and she might like to raise the issue then.

Barry Sheerman: I think the Leader of the House could have been a little bit more generous about Harold Wilson in his remarks. Is it time that we had debates in which we can reflect on the successes and failures of previous Administrations? [Hon. Members: “Margaret Thatcher.”] Certainly we could have a debate on that too. The Wilson years provide an example of a Prime Minister who resolutely kept us out of the Vietnam war, telling LBJ he was not even going to send a band of bagpipes; who expanded higher education tremendously, establishing the Open university; and who gave people a choice on Europe, so there are lessons to be learned. There is no decent statue in the Members’ Lobby to a very fine Prime Minister. It is about time that we rectified that and put up a proper statue.

Andrew Lansley: I recall that there is a bust of Harold Wilson in the Members’ Lobby. I hesitate to intrude on the Labour party’s grief, but as the hon. Gentleman described Harold Wilson’s attributes in office it was almost as if he was attempting a critique of Tony Blair at the same time.

William Cash: In liaison with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) may I ask my right hon. Friend—who will personally recall my parliamentary campaign for a public inquiry, under the Inquiries Act 2005, into Stafford hospital, which was granted by the Prime Minister but persistently
	refused by the previous Government—to ensure that we have an early debate on the Floor of the House, in Government time, on the Francis report? When will it be?

Andrew Lansley: When I was shadow Health Secretary, my hon. Friend and I discussed this matter fully. It has now been proved that we were absolutely right then, and I was right as Secretary of State to institute the Francis inquiry. We have the report and we will respond. My hon. Friend and his colleagues have been to the Backbench Business Committee to seek time for debate on this matter. I will, of course, gladly discuss with the Chair of that Committee when time might be available for that debate.

Natascha Engel: The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) will shortly launch her Select Committee’s report, but she will be taking questions from Members in the form of interventions. The Leader of the House’s Office has produced a set of Standing Order changes to enable Select Committee Chairs to launch a report and then take questions in a more normal format. Will the Leader of the House please bring forward those Standing Order changes?

Andrew Lansley: I will gladly discuss that with the hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), the Chair of the Liaison Committee, to ensure that we have, if possible, a format for these reports that works for Select Committee Chairs and which also suits the Backbench Business Committee in the allocation of its time.

Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend see whether he can find a day for the House to debate the impact of the important news that the United States of America and the European Union are to start formal talks over a new free trade agreement, which would greatly increase trade between us? Will he also confirm that even though this is a pretty dismal time for free trade, with the collapse of the Doha round, our Government believe that free trade is a great and powerful tool for growth?

Andrew Lansley: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Like me and others across the House, I am sure that he was heartened by the conclusions of the European Council and the EU’s determination to seek free trade agreements. Today’s agreement to commence EU-US free trade discussions is only one part of the EU’s ambitious agenda. That is absolutely right. I cannot identify now when time would be available for such a debate, but it would of course be entirely relevant not least to the Budget debate on maintaining the pace of economic recovery.

Jeremy Corbyn: By the time the House returns on 25 February, it will have been a month since British troops were first committed to assist France’s activities in Mali. We have heard that there is to be a considerable deployment of troops all across north Africa. I cannot understand why, despite repeated requests, neither the Prime Minister, nor the Defence Secretary or the Foreign Secretary has made a statement since then, and there has been no vote in the House on our significant involvement in another foreign
	policy adventure. Will the Leader of the House please tell us when a Minister will make a statement and give us a proper opportunity to debate this matter fully?

Andrew Lansley: As the hon. Gentleman knows from previous business questions, including last week’s, I made it clear that a full written ministerial statement would be made before the House rose. That, of course, was made yesterday. Included in that was not only the support we are giving at the request of the French Government, but the question of when the extent of the European training mission and our support for it would be determined. Ministers will keep the House fully updated, but I reiterate the point I have made previously to the hon. Gentleman: we will continually look at and ensure that we fully comply with the convention of securing a debate in the House if our troops are committed other than on an emergency basis to any continuing conflict. Our intention is for our support to be logistical and training support, rather than in the form of combat operations.

Bob Russell: The House will know that the Government of Israel now refuse to co-operate with the United Nations Human Rights Council. Despite that, the European football authorities are going to stage the under-21 finals in Israel later this year, and the English FA, despite its “Let’s Kick Racism out of Football” campaign in this country, will be sending a team. May we therefore have a general debate on Israel and its dependence on economic, cultural and sporting associations with the EU, and particularly the UK, when it manifestly is not geographically in Europe?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend invites me to enter tricky territory. What is Europe is often interpreted differently in different contexts, as he will remember from the Eurovision song contest, no less. I encourage him to raise this, particularly the human rights issues, with colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office when they answer questions here on 5 March. I will also check with colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to see whether they have anything further to add on the footballing issues.

Sandra Osborne: May we have a statement on the adequacy of the discretionary payment, which exists to support the most vulnerable people who will suffer as a result of the bedroom tax? East Ayrshire council has sent letters to people saying that they might be entitled to a discretionary payment for a short period of time, after which they will have to find the money themselves. This is a matter of serious concern to some of my most vulnerable constituents, and I would welcome the Government looking at the matter again.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady will be aware that this Government allocated an additional £30 million to the discretionary housing payment budget, taking it to £195 million. This is specifically aimed at helping disabled people who live in significantly adapted accommodation, and foster carers.

Julian Lewis: Given that an in/out referendum and cutting the EU budget are both now mainstream Conservative policies, may we
	have a debate in Government time on redefining the term “rebels” as people who are usually only a couple of weeks ahead of their time?

Andrew Lansley: In the spirit of remembering Harold Wilson —oh, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) has left the Chamber—who said that a week was a long time in politics, I suggest that in rebellions, a fortnight is an eternity.

Meg Hillier: There are currently only six working mothers in the Government, and only one at the Cabinet table. That might go some way towards explaining the confusion and chaos in the Government’s child care policy. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time—as it involves Government business—to discuss this matter, so that the Government can take on board the expertise of other Members from their own constituencies and their own experience?

Andrew Lansley: I am surprised that the hon. Lady does not recognise the considerable benefits associated with the recent announcements made by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) on child care policy. We are reducing the costs and burdens of child care, and creating greater flexibility. The number of women, and of women with families, in the Government has increased and will no doubt continue to do so, but I would put it gently to the hon. Lady that we men who have families understand the need for good quality child care as well.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Leader of the House is well aware that a lot of unitary authority and county council areas throughout the country have suffered substantial infrastructure damage as a result of flooding. Money is being made available for bolstering flood defences, but none is being made directly available for the restoration of roads, drains and hedges and for the repair of all the other damage that has been caused. Is it possible to have a debate on this matter—in Government time, as it affects the whole of the United Kingdom—to discuss whether money could be made available to repair that damage?

Andrew Lansley: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. This is similar to what happens after severe winter weather, when potholes and other problems need to be dealt with. Last winter and the winter before that, some additional resources were found for local authorities to do that. He makes a good point, and I will raise the matter with the Department for Communities and Local Government, not least in order to see when it will be able to say something about those impacts. I hope that that will be helpful to my hon. Friend.

Derek Twigg: I am getting an increasing number of letters from disabled constituents who are terrified of the impact of the bedroom tax. There is a storm coming the Government’s way on the issue of benefit cuts. May I repeat my request to the Leader of the House for an urgent debate, with the Prime Minister present, so that we can hear about the horrendous impact of the bedroom tax on my constituents and on tens of thousands of other people around the country?

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry to have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the simple fact that he and his colleagues keep repeating this does not make it so. Under the Labour Government, under-occupancy deductions were made in exactly the same way in relation to those in receipt of housing benefit in the private sector. Opposition Members have to understand two simple propositions. First, we have to save money. Secondly, there is under-occupancy in the social housing sector, as there was in the private rented sector. In order to gain the maximum benefit from the available social housing, we have to have incentives for the space to be best used.

Aidan Burley: The findings of the Francis report were especially disturbing for my constituents, many of whom received terrible care at Stafford hospital, but the jobs merry-go-round is equally disturbing. For example, Helen Moss, the former director of nursing, who was in charge when care reached appalling standards, now works for Ernst and Young as a consultant. Her company has since won a contract to look at the financial viability of the Mid Staffs trust. May we have a debate on ending this shameful roundabout, where people get on, fail and then are moved somewhere else?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment directly on individuals, other than to say that—I think this is a matter of public record—although Helen Moss is working in a consultancy role, she is not working directly in relation to the Mid Staffs trust. I completely understand the general point, however. The Francis inquiry is continuing, and the Government will respond in due course, but while its report has clearly set out many of the central issues for the system as a whole, it was not asked to draw conclusions about the behaviour of individuals, and it did not do so. That is principally a matter for the professional regulatory bodies, of course, but this issue does raise the question of the place of managers in particular in a professional regulatory structure of that kind.

Grahame Morris: May I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to early-day motion 773? It has attracted the signatures of over 95 Members from seven political parties, including the coalition parties.
	[That this House notes that the most significant development that has followed from the Government's healthcare reforms has been the 7 billion worth of new contracts being made available to the private health sector; further notes that at least five former advisers to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are now working for lobbying firms with private healthcare clients; recalls the Prime Minister's own reported remarks prior to the general election when he described lobbying as ‘the next big scandal waiting to happen'; recognises the growing scandal of the procurement model that favours the private health sector over the NHS, by allowing private companies to hide behind commercial confidentiality and which compromises the best practice aspirations of the public sector; condemns the practice of revolving doors, whereby Government health advisers move to lucrative contracts in the private healthcare sector, especially at a time when the privatisation of the NHS is proceeding by stealth; is deeply concerned at the unfair advantages being handed to private healthcare companies; and demands that in future all private healthcare companies be subject 
	to freedom of information requests under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the same way as existing NHS public sector organisations.]
	Given that £7 billion of NHS contracts is currently being tendered for, or has been awarded to, private sector health companies, may we have a debate on whether freedom of information requests should apply to private health companies bidding for NHS contracts that currently hide behind a cloak of commercial confidentiality?

Andrew Lansley: Health questions will take place on the next sitting Tuesday. On public procurement and the need to audit public money, the Freedom of Information Act cannot at present reach wherever public money goes, but the transparency requirements set out in contracts enable there to be absolute clarity about the propriety and purposes of public funds used in procurement.

Neil Parish: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on food labelling for processed food? The horse scandal has shown that the labels on processed food throw mystery on where that food comes from, rather than provide enlightenment. We have an opportunity to get something positive from this scandal, by making sure that people recognise where their food comes from.

Andrew Lansley: I understand the point my hon. Friend makes, and he will have heard the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), who has responsibility for food and farming, say precisely that. The Minister agrees that we must make sure food labelling delivers to consumers the information they need. As I know from my experience, we are making good progress in respect of the nutritional content of food and helping people to construct a good diet, but the provenance, origin and composition of foods must also be made very clear. My ministerial colleagues have reported to the House on that, and I know they will find further opportunities to do so.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. As the House will know, I almost invariably call everyone at business questions, and I would like to do so again today, but it is a day of Backbench Business Committee debates, which are well subscribed, so we are under heavy time pressure. I therefore appeal to colleagues to ask single short questions, and to Leader of the House to give pithy replies.

Barbara Keeley: Unpaid carers provide vital care to frail, ill and disabled people, but thousands of them are being hit by the benefits cap and the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. Many will also be hit by the bedroom tax and the loss of council tax benefit, and we now find from the updated impact assessment for personal independence payments that 10,000 carers will lose their carers allowance and 5,000 fewer will qualify. May we have a debate on why this Government are hitting unpaid carers with their reforms, rather than exempting them?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady has to recognise, for example, that we specifically excluded carers from the constraint on the uprating of welfare benefit—recognising
	their role. The draft Care and Support Bill puts into statute for the first time specific support for carers, not least in respect of supporting their health.

Peter Bone: The shadow Leader of the House made a very wise suggestion earlier today—for Conservative Members to date a Liberal Democrat Member tonight. I pick the Deputy Prime Minister; who would my right hon. Friend choose?

Andrew Lansley: I think I may have detected a somewhat different sense to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House than my hon. Friend has in his interpretation. I think that the Leader of the House and the deputy Leader of the House make a perfectly good team; that is how we regard ourselves for these purposes.

Barry Gardiner: The Leader of the House will have heard the Chair of the Health Select Committee on the “Today” programme earlier today talking about gagging orders and the way in which they have been used in the health service. Will the right hon. Gentleman make time for a debate so that we can discuss making it a criminal offence to put a gagging order into a contract that is guaranteed to be against public safety?

Andrew Lansley: It would be relevant to consider that matter when the House has an opportunity to debate the Francis inquiry. I did not hear the Chair of the Select Committee today, but when I was Secretary of State for Health, I made it very clear—and the chief executive of the NHS made it very clear—that gagging clauses would not be put into NHS contracts. We set that out. If I recall correctly—I will, of course, make sure it is corrected if I am wrong—the particular case that gave rise to this report related to a contract of employment and a gagging clause that was applied before the last election.

Mark Pritchard: May we have a debate on how Telford and Wrekin council consult local people on residential and retail development? In particular, we need to debate how the council is ignoring the concerns of Newport residents about the speed and size and applications both for housing and retail supermarket development in that ancient market town.

Andrew Lansley: Local development framework consultation should explicitly allow for a response from local communities. In my experience, it can be buttressed by our new statutory provision for neighbourhood plans. I encourage my hon. Friend and his constituents to get together in Newport and look to providing a neighbourhood plan, which could entrench local views into the local planning framework.

Gavin Shuker: Over the last two days, many of my constituents have been caught up in the extensive disruption on the Thameslink railway route. Could time be made available to discuss the problems on that line, particularly given that, in the light of the west coast main line debacle, the operator has been awarded a two and a half year contract to continue to run the franchise when it would otherwise have finished earlier?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman might care to raise that matter at Transport questions, which I believe are on the Thursday of the week the House next sits. He will have seen the announcement on the Thameslink northern franchise, to which he referred. If I may, I will ask the Department for Transport whether there are any further issues arising out of recent problems and ask it to correspond with the hon. Gentleman and let me know the outcome.

Alun Cairns: Unemployment in the Vale of Glamorgan has fallen consistently over the last 12 months, and now stands at a rate of a little over 5%. For those people who remain unemployed, experience is an important attribute as they need it to try to get back into work. May we have a debate on the Government’s Work programme to clarify what was said in court this week, but also to underline the principle that for people who receive these sorts of benefits, experience can help them back into work?

Andrew Lansley: I do not know whether a debate will be possible in the near future, but I certainly think it is important for us to continue to support the principle, which I think the court did not contest, that it is right and proper for the Government, and in the interests of the unemployed, to ensure that people get back in the workplace, get that experience and do not lose contact with work. That is at the heart of the Work programme.

Kevin Brennan: May we have a debate on the management of special advisers? The Education Secretary has taken the unusual step of writing to the Education Committee in response to an invitation that he has not yet received, asking him why he did not know that one of his special advisers, Dominic Cummings, was one of those who were involved in a grievance procedure initiated by a member of staff which resulted in a £25,000 payout. Should the Secretary of State not know about such things going on in his Department, and does he not have a responsibility, under the Ministerial Code, to know what his spads are up to?

Andrew Lansley: I have seen the letter that my right hon. Friend sent to the Committee, and I think it perfectly reasonable for him to ensure that Select Committees are always given the relevant information at the earliest possible moment.

Andrew Jones: This is national heart month, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend has seen Members wearing badges in recognition and support of it. Please may we have a debate about what is being done to support long-term funding of research on heart and circulatory diseases, and what is being done to help people take care of their own hearts?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I have seen the badges. Indeed, there was a specific day on which I wore a British Heart Foundation badge myself.
	Because the Government recognised its importance, we maintained the research budget, including the budget for the National Institute for Health Research. I believe
	that, in the last full year, the institute spent some £54 million on research on cardiovascular disease and strokes.

Jason McCartney: My constituents and I continue to be frustrated by the continuing saga of the roadworks and speed restrictions on the M62 between Huddersfield and Leeds. This has been going on for many months. Will my right hon. Friend raise it urgently with the Secretary of State for Transport, and also find time for an urgent debate? The ever-increasing number of accidents and the ever-increasing congestion are affecting the whole west Yorkshire economy.

Andrew Lansley: I have driven along that piece of road, and I know exactly what my hon. Friend is referring to. The matter is very important to his constituents and to others, and I will of course raise it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I know that efforts are being made to complete the work this year, and to do it as fast as possible, but I will encourage my right hon. Friend to say what can be done to ensure the best possible flow of traffic and maximum safety.

Andrew Stephenson: On 28 January, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), I was delighted to welcome the Secretary of State for Health to the excellent Airedale general hospital. Many Pendle residents use the hospital and the outside services that it provides. For example, telemedicine is used in a number of Pendle GP surgeries and in our nursing homes. May we have a debate on the potential benefits of telemedicine to the NHS, to ensure that they can be realised and that proper joined-up working can take place between doctors, the ambulance service and our local hospitals?

Andrew Lansley: I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friends enjoyed my right hon. Friend’s visit to Airedale general hospital. I recall visiting the hospital myself and being very impressed with the work it was doing. When I was in Kirklees, I was also very impressed by a demonstration of what telehealth and telecare can achieve. A trial was completed which led to the launch of the “3 million lives” programme just over a year ago, which achieved a 45% reduction in mortality rates among those who were enrolled in the programme.

Philip Davies: May I reiterate the calls for a debate about Harold Wilson, and ask whether, in the event of such a debate, we would be allowed to refer to the fact that he smoked a pipe? It seems that the politically correct brigade at the BBC have decided to block out that fact, Soviet-style, for the purposes of the programme that they are making about him. Perhaps we could combine a debate about Harold Wilson with a debate about politically correct idiocy at the BBC.

Andrew Lansley: I find it difficult to conceive of the possibility of a programme about Harold Wilson without his pipe. How would it explain how he gave himself time to think? I must say that I am not sure how he managed not to use his pipe at the Dispatch Box, given that it was such an integral part of his make-up.

Philip Hollobone: Against the background of falling crime levels, a recent sharp increase in the number of burglaries in Kettering is cause for local concern. The Leader of the House will know that most burglars are already known to the police, and that most burglaries are carried out by burglars who are released too early from prison having not completed their sentences. May we have a joint statement by Ministers from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice about what Her Majesty’s Government are doing to tackle this most pernicious of crimes?

Andrew Lansley: I have listened to what my hon. Friend says and, to be helpful, I will, of course, ask my colleagues at the Home Office to reply, particularly on his local situation. If I recall correctly, they were saying that although there has been a reduction in crime, they have had a particular focus on the clear-up rates in relation to burglary. It is very important that they do that.

Christopher Pincher: May we have a statement on the approach to care in the Staffordshire NHS cluster? My 22-year-old constituent, Thomas Berry, suffers from spinal muscular atrophy, which means that he cannot do very much for himself, but the cluster wants to change his care plan, against his wishes, the wishes of his carers and the advice of his doctor. That could have a material impact on his health, yet the cluster is not even able to tell me whether it thinks it might have an impact on his health. May we have a statement so that we can question Staffordshire’s approach to care, including the apparent refusal of the chief executive and the head of continuing care to answer MPs’ questions adequately?

Andrew Lansley: I know that the chief executive of the Staffordshire primary care trust cluster would be very willing to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this matter, if it would be helpful. Obviously I cannot enter into a discussion about his constituent, but the general point he makes is that the whole object of care plans is for them to be agreed between the patient, their family and their clinicians.

Kris Hopkins: We are approaching the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, a conflict that saw the loss of many British service personnel and more than half a million Iraqis killed. There are still unanswered questions about the legality of the war, so will my right hon. Friend facilitate a debate on this important issue?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend raises a point that I know has been raised with the Backbench Business Committee. I think we should particularly commemorate this anniversary and remember the loss of life, particularly our own dead and injured. I think that the Government should look to the Chilcot inquiry as the basis on which this House should then consider the lessons to be learned.

Julian Smith: May we have a debate about the merits of introducing financial incentives to UK whistleblowing legislation? Such incentives are in place in the United States, where its Treasury makes a fortune as a result. If we had them here, be they
	in respect of health, banking or other sectors of our economy, more people would step forward and indicate where malpractice is taking place.

Andrew Lansley: Of course, I am familiar, to some extent, with the fact that there are incentives for whistleblowers in financial services in America, but I did not know that they extended any further than that. In a number of contexts, we want to ensure, in particular, that there are no disincentives, but we also want to ensure that there are clear incentives for people to be whistleblowers, where that is appropriate.

John Glen: My constituents from the Wilton community land trust were delighted to have the opportunity, finally, to bid for the Ministry of Defence site at the Erskine barracks. However, they were somewhat dismayed by the lack of provision in the tendering document for communities’ views to be taken into account. May I reiterate the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for the MOD to make a statement on how it is going to listen to community groups when disposing of its assets?

Andrew Lansley: I will not repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North earlier, but it is important, in any set of circumstances where disposal is being taken forward, for the local councils and the partners to engage fully with the local community. I hope that that is the practice in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), too.

Marcus Jones: Many of my constituents will welcome the fact that this week the Government have taken an important step forward by committing to support people with their care costs where they have assets of up to £123,000, as opposed to the current limit of £23,000. Will my right hon. Friend schedule a debate on this issue, which is extremely important in respect of fairness, particularly for those who have saved hard and done the right thing for their retirement?

Andrew Lansley: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health was able to make a
	statement at the beginning of the week on the response to Andrew Dilnot’s commission, which I had the privilege of establishing. The relevant provisions are the subject of a further representation to the Joint Committee considering the draft Care and Support Bill and I hope that that will enable the House in due course to see the measures taken forward as rapidly as possible.

Neil Carmichael: Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that one of the successes of the coalition Government has been the provision of a proper framework for post offices so that they can feel secure, modernise and serve their rural communities? In my constituency, many post offices have felt a huge benefit from that support, in complete contrast to the closure programme under the previous Labour Government.

Andrew Lansley: I can tell my hon. Friend that the Lord Privy Seal is very much in agreement with him. There will not be any repeat of the closure programme that we saw under the previous Government, which I experienced in my constituency and he no doubt did in his. We are committed to maintaining a network of 11,500 branches, with £1.3 billion of funding to support that during the spending review period. By 2015, at least half of those branches will have been modernised as he describes.

Rehman Chishti: There are concerns in my constituency about the mortality rates at the local hospital, which will now be investigated by the NHS Commissioning Board. Will the Leader of the House allow an urgent debate on how we can improve such hospitals?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will recall that I visited Medway hospital. It is very important that we recognise that when there is a significant deviation from the standardised mortality data and too high a level of apparent mortality is recorded that is an indicator that should be acted upon and is not in itself evidence of poor care. From the point of view of the Department and the Care Quality Commission, one of the lessons from Mid Staffs was that indicators, alarm bells, smoke alarms or whatever we might call them should never be ignored. I hope that we will see determination to act on any evidence but not to jump to any conclusions.

Point of Order

Claire Perry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This morning, I had the great pleasure of appearing on a radio programme with the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) to discuss the fact that his book is the most borrowed publication in the House of Commons Library. In preparing for that programme, I was minded to go back around the Library and it made me realise what an extraordinarily fantastically great asset we have in the Library and the Library staff. I would be grateful for your advice on how we as MPs might express our appreciation for the staff and management, who, I suspect, are not thanked often enough.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and my answer to her is twofold. First, she has already done so most eloquently on behalf of Members in all parts of the House. Secondly, she will be no stranger to the mechanism of an early-day motion. If she feels moved on the back of her point of order and the warm reception of it to table such a motion, she might well find a significant number of signatories. I note in passing that I, too, am familiar with the book entitled, “How to be a Backbencher”, penned by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), and it is a much-thumbed tome in the Bercow household.

Backbench Business

Mr Speaker: Before I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to move the first motion, it might be for the convenience of the House if I mention now that the next debate, on protecting future generations from violence against women and girls, is very heavily subscribed. I am therefore minded to impose at this stage a six-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions that will take effect after the mover of that motion sits down.

Contamination of Beef Products

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of the publication of the Eighth Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Contamination of Beef Products, HC 946.
	It give me great pleasure to take this opportunity, for which the Select Committee is extremely grateful, to launch our report on the contamination of beef products, our eighth report. I am particularly grateful for all the support of colleagues on the Committee and for the swift turnaround in taking the initial evidence and receiving it in written form. We are grateful to those who gave evidence, as we are to those on the Committee secretariat who helped us to prepare the report.
	This is a matter of huge public interest. Our earlier report in July last year dealt with desinewed meat, and I want to refer to the conclusion drawn by a former director of the Food Standards Agency that there is a direct correlation between the Commission’s unilateral ban on desinewed meats in this country and the entry of suspicious filler products in March last year. We conclude that the scale of contamination is breathtaking. This is a European crisis requiring a European solution. One month on, we are still no clearer as to where the suspicious substance enters the food chain. Today we heard from the Farming Minister of doubts being cast on the effectiveness of the European horse passport system.

Roger Williams: I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for giving way and congratulate her on the report. She makes a valid point: we do not know where the horsemeat entered the food chain. Does she agree that not knowing that means that we do not know where it originated or what premises the horses were slaughtered at? They could be unlicensed premises.

Anne McIntosh: That is probably one of the most worrying aspects. What we do know is that since our evidence session on 30 January, horse and pig DNA contamination was found in more beef products. Samples of Findus lasagne contained more than 60% horsemeat, Aldi lasagne and spaghetti bolognaise contained between 30% and 100% horsemeat, and beef products certified as halal supplied to prisons in England and Wales were found to contain pork DNA. Today we learn that bute has been identified in eight samples of beef products.

Neil Parish: I thank the hon. Lady for chairing the Committee and bringing us the report. Does she agree that it is now more important then ever for people to know exactly where the processed product has been made, exactly what the ingredients are and exactly where they have come from, so that we can have confidence and use the Red Tractor and farm assured schemes to ensure that people know where their food has come from?

Anne McIntosh: I shall come to that very point. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and fellow member of the Committee.
	The Food Standards Agency is an independent, arm’s length, non-ministerial body. The question we ask is: to whom is the FSA accountable? It was found on this occasion to be flatfooted. We note that the Food Safety Authority of Ireland informed of its testing in November, but the FSA UK started testing only when those results were known, on 15 January. We draw the conclusion that no statutory powers are given to require testing. We also note a need for the FSA to co-operate more with its European counterparts across the European Union.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Lady will know from the front of The Times today and from her own Select Committee that the former Agriculture Minister, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), spoke to her Committee last summer and warned that unlawful meat would be imported from Europe as manufacturers sought cheap sources to make up for banned British supplies. She said the FSA was flatfooted. Does she think the Government should have been more ready for that possibility, given that one of their former Ministers had warned of that very thing in front of her Committee last summer?

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has referred to conclusion 8 in our report, which is entirely relevant. I note with some sadness, as I represent one of the largest meat-producing areas in the country, that that one decision led to the loss of 30 jobs in my constituency. No other ban has been imposed on any other member state, and we are importing that so-called Baader meat, a similarly produced meat, and substandard —I would say—filler meat as well.
	The one welcome aspect, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) referred, is that there appears to have been a change in shopping habits over the past month. The one shining light is that we can have absolute confidence in home-produced beef and other British meats. We are now buying more British beef, more local meat from butchers and farm shops and more meat marked with the Red Tractor logo at the supermarket. The Red Tractor signifies that the entire food chain has been traced from farm to plate. It shows that the highest animal welfare and hygiene standards have been met. The farmers pay for the inspections. I believe that that is the flagship that should be used for good traceability for all imports. They should meet the same high standards and be as transparent for processed and frozen meats as they are for fresh, whether the meat comes from home, Europe or third countries.

Barry Gardiner: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the way in which she courteously and expeditiously steered the Committee to the report. Does she share my astonishment that companies such as Tesco, which conducts minute product checks on our farmers’ fruit and vegetables, often causing them huge financial loss for misshapen produce, seem to have failed to do any checks on processed meat products? Might that be because they believed such checks could reveal some very inconvenient truths?

Anne McIntosh: I say to my fellow Committee member—dare I say my hon. Friend?—that that is worrying, and I will refer to those checks later. The Committee was astonished to learn that the cost of the checks—he will correct me if I am wrong—is in the region of £1 million to £2 million for one product line. Following the urgent question earlier today, we should be under no illusion that the cost of food will regrettably go up, but this is a wake-up call and an invitation to source more British meat going into frozen and processed foods, in particular. I believe that that will swiftly restore consumer confidence in those products.

Peter Bone: Did the Committee consider whether a temporary ban on imports from the European Union would benefit everyone? Surely the processed meat industry in this country must be devastated, because no one will be keen to buy while there is a danger that there might be something wrong with the meat. If the processed products were made using only British meat, there would be no problem.

Anne McIntosh: We have yet to conclude all our evidence and have not had the opportunity to consider that point, but I am sure that we will.
	There are insufficient controls in the food chain to protect consumers from contaminated and potentially unsafe food. We think that this is an opportunity to examine the whole food supply chain. Consumers have been let down by retailers who took on trust the assurances of their suppliers—that addresses the point made by my friend the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). Many consumers rely on supermarkets for their weekly shop and take it on trust that labels are accurate. This situation is worrying precisely because Tesco and other retailers were trying to produce economy products at low cost. The drive to lower costs increases the likelihood of fraud, and that is the point of view of the National Farmers Union. Meat processors also have procedures to check and document sources of raw material, but they do not include DNA testing.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent report and on her Committee’s endeavours. On the point about consumer confidence, one of the things that is traceable now is the customer. With their loyalty cards, the big supermarkets know who their customers are and what they are buying. Will she and her Committee encourage the big super- markets, at a time of crisis like this, to communicate directly with their customers to offer them the reassurance they seek?

Anne McIntosh: I believe that that will be an inevitable consequence of the exercise, and I hope that they will respond positively to that invitation.
	Obviously, substituting horsemeat for beef, which is what has been discovered, is described as criminal activity and will be investigated. We are obviously delighted that the perpetrators will face the full force of the law. However, the potential shortcomings are particularly worrying, because the food industry currently appears unable to account for ingredients in all its foodstuffs. We conclude that it is improbable that those who are prepared to pass horsemeat off as beef illegally will apply the high hygiene standards that we require and that consumers expect in food production. With regard to lessons to be learnt, we strongly believe that the FSA has to be more fleet of foot. It must be given the tools to do the job. It currently has no statutory power to require testing by producers, taking into account the level of risk.

Caroline Lucas: The hon. Lady rightly says that the FSA needs greater powers, but does she agree that the increasing length and complexity of supply chains inevitably make such risks more likely and that, therefore, as well as strengthening the FSA, we need a far more radical look at re-localising our food supplies?

Anne McIntosh: Absolutely. As I said, consumers have responded to the challenge by buying more locally, and I hope that they will continue to do so. For example, if we buy meat for a Sunday roast or stew and then freeze what is left over to serve in other ways over the week, we are basically processing the food ourselves, and that will lead to a much better understanding of what we are eating. I entirely take the hon. Lady’s point.
	The Committee’s view is that the FSA has been reduced to a food safety body. We believe that its powers were weakened in 2010. It told us that labelling policy was “not really for us” because that is not a food safety issue.

Sheryll Murray: With regard to the EU regulation that would allow certain national derogations, which the Government are consulting on at the moment, does my hon. Friend agree that when responding we should consider very carefully the implications that we have now seen?

Anne McIntosh: I am delighted that we do conclude that that approach should be taken, as I will mention in my closing remarks. It was very much the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) who proposed that, and the Committee was absolutely at one with him in that view.
	Although policy is rightly the responsibility of Ministers, we are firmly of the view that the FSA’s diminished role has led to a lack of clarity about where responsibility lies, which has weakened the UK’s ability to identify and respond to food health concerns. Furthermore, the current contamination crisis has caught the FSA and the Government flat-footed and unable to respond effectively within structures that were designed primarily to respond to threats to human health. I believe that this is a firm wake-up call. Having had the BSE and foot and mouth crisis, we have perhaps been a little slack in our food inspections. We conclude that the FSA’s testing
	regime is weak. It was Ireland’s FSA that identified the contamination, using tests not currently used in the UK, which leads us to question whether the UK’s FSA is at the forefront of scientific analysis.
	In our conclusions and recommendations, we state that the Government and the FSA have called for a wide range of tests to be undertaken, which we welcome. I am sure that the whole Committee would welcome the European tests that have been announced. I firmly believe that we need a European solution. We need to examine the whole supply chain. In the urgent question earlier today, an hon. Friend said that the miles and the number of countries that these ingredients have travelled through before ending up on our plates in processed and frozen foods is staggering.
	The FSA should be responsible for food safety. It should be given the statutory power to require those in the food industry to undertake tests to determine that their products comply with food standards regulations. That process should be risk-based and proportionate, and the results of all tests, whether mandated by the FSA or carried out independently by the retailers themselves, should be reported to the FSA. As regards the European testing that was announced yesterday, we must ask to whom the results will be reported and whether they will be shared across the piece with all the responsible national authorities.
	We want strengthened testing regimes in the UK meat industry. We want to know what the Government are doing to improve the operation of the European horse passport system, given that the Minister said earlier that it is not as effective as we would wish. The Government must also explore how best to avoid future contamination and to achieve the correct balance between affordable food prices and regulations to ensure transparency and quality.
	In my constituency, we face a deep crisis in the sheep sector. Across the north of England, and I am sure in many other parts of the country, there is a real fear of sheep producers going to the wall. Most farmers have used their winter storage but are unable to allow sheep to forage because the grass is under snow or deep under water. I personally believe that this is a very worrying development. Farm gate prices have gone down and the costs of farm production have gone up. The cost of foodstuffs is going up, the cost of fuel to take animals to market has gone up, and farm gate prices are going down.
	We have seen the constant drive by supermarkets to store on their shelves low-value, low-cost, and, we now know, very suspicious adulterated food. We are worried that the consumer will be caught in a Catch-22 situation between paying the costs of higher traceability, labelling and testing standards and having to accept that they will not be provided with comprehensive information about the provenance and composition of the food they eat. There are strong indications that people with criminal intent have intentionally substituted horsemeat for beef. That leads us to conclude that British consumers have been cynically and systematically duped in pursuit of profit by certain elements within the food industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) and the hon. Member for Brent North said, this is not the time, given the current crisis of labelling and traceability, for the Government to be seeking through their consultation a derogation to reduce the labelling requirements for beef or other meat products,
	We are calling for more testing of food safety and composition across the European food industry because the current arrangements for testing and control have failed UK consumers. The Food Standards Agency needs clear powers and responsibilities to back up what Ministers are demanding that it do, and what consumers expect from it, so that it can respond more effectively to any future food adulteration scandal. It gives me great pleasure to commend the Committee’s eighth report to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

Violence against Women and Girls

Fiona Mactaggart: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the One Billion Rising Campaign, and the call to end violence against women and girls; and calls on the Government to support this by introducing statutory provisions to make personal, social and health education, including a zero tolerance approach to violence and abuse in relationships, a requirement in schools.
	I rise to speak to the motion on the Order Paper in my name and in the names of many Members across parties. Before I do so, I should like to say some thank yous. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us this debate. I thank the Leader of the House for tipping us the wink a few weeks earlier that we would probably secure a debate on this day, which is significant because of my other thank you—to the One Billion Rising campaign, a coalition of women around the world rising against violence against women. Many of us who are in the Chamber have been in Parliament square with them today, dancing, shouting and protesting. The movement was prompted by the 15th anniversary of “The Vagina Monologues” by Eve Ensler. Any of us who have heard her speak about how rape is used as a weapon of war will recognise that we are having absolutely the correct pair of debates today—the debate that I am initiating and the debate on sexual violence in conflict that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) will introduce later.
	I chose this subject for debate because activists in the One Billion Rising campaign around the country have been running workshops about what would make the most difference in addressing domestic violence. Over the course of history, quite a lot of things have been done in that regard. We have better prosecution rates, IDVAs—independent domestic violence advisers—and refuges to help victims of domestic violence. However, the workshops concluded that the most important thing to do is make the next generation safe, and that the shortfall in our response to such violence is caused by a lack of education to prevent it. That has led to a situation where one in three women will experience violence in her lifetime, and that is unacceptable.
	Others have reached the same view. Although the recent cross-party inquiry into unwanted pregnancies focused on preventing teenage pregnancy, it also argued the importance of teaching young people in school to make informed choices and to resist being coerced through peer pressure into sex or risky sexual behaviour. The Schools Safe 4 Girls campaign, which was launched by the End Violence Against Women Coalition last autumn, echoes that message. Almost every Select Committee report that has looked into domestic violence concluded that the Government’s weakest response is in education.

Kevin Brennan: Does my hon. Friend regret as much I do the fact that putting personal, social and health education, including sex and relationships education, on to a statutory basis was blocked just before the last general election? That could already have been in place.

Fiona Mactaggart: It is a real pity that that did not proceed. It is also a pity that the Government-initiated inquiry into sex and relationships education, which was
	launched in 2011, has yet to report. The Government have a lack of urgency and a lack of adequate commitment on this matter.

Joan Ruddock: Does my hon. Friend agree that many people will say that this education is the responsibility of parents and families and that it should not be done in schools? Many of its opponents—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We can hear some such opponents on the Government Benches. I would say to them—I hope that my hon. Friend agrees—that many families do not have the capacity to educate their children, and many families, unfortunately, have violent relationships within them, and that is not appropriate to the education of children.

Fiona Mactaggart: The responsibility of families does not get rid of the responsibility of the education service.

Mary Macleod: Does the hon. Lady agree that some schools are already taking a lead on this issue and teaching it, and that that, along with partnership working with the police, it is incredibly important? That is what I find in my London borough of Hounslow.

Fiona Mactaggart: Yes, of course there are schools that are doing this well. The problem is that we do not have a comprehensive system—I will go into the details later—that guarantees excellent sex and relationships education. It is unsafe not to have such a system in schools, and that is my argument.

Madeleine Moon: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Fiona Mactaggart: I am trying to make progress, but I will give way.

Madeleine Moon: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for being so patient, because I know she wants to make progress. The Office for National Statistics estimates that more than 500,000 people will be victims of sexual crimes in an average year, with only up to 10,000 prosecutions. Does that not show that there needs to be wider education so that people can protect themselves, as the state, through the police force, is clearly failing to protect them?

Fiona Mactaggart: Let us be honest: the police response to this issue has improved over the past decade. It is better than it used to be, but it is not good enough. My hon. Friend is right that the police usually detect only about 2% or 3% of crimes and that there are even fewer prosecutions. The situation, therefore, is not completely unusual. The best response to crime is to prevent it in the first place. My argument is that taking on the challenge of teaching against violence is one way of preventing it.
	I am an MP now, but I used to be an educator. I used to teach children in the last years of primary school and then I taught adults to be teachers. I know that good-quality education can transform lives, but I also know that, too often, this subject is an afterthought in too many
	schools. Let us look at the issue from first principles: is it necessary to act; will the motion’s proposed action make a difference; and what will happen if it does not?
	The British crime survey shows that one in 14 women and one in 20 men interviewed in 2011-12 had experienced domestic abuse by a partner or family member in the past year. According to the same interviews, nearly one in three women and almost one in five men said that they had experienced such abuse since the age of 16. A freedom of information request made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) suggested that a third of 999 calls about domestic violence are from people who have been previous victims. Every week, two women are murdered in domestic violence murders. Around the world, women aged 15 to 44 are more likely to die or be disabled because of violence than as a result of cancer, malaria, traffic accidents and war combined.
	This is an issue in schools. A YouGov poll found that nearly one in three 16 to 18-year-old girls has experienced groping or unwanted sexual touching. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children found that a third of girls aged 13 to 17 in relationships had experienced physical or sexual violence, with 12% of them reporting rape. We know how often girls who are victims of rape do not report it, because they are not taught in schools about relationships and the importance of consent. The interim findings of the exploitation inquiry undertaken by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and the university of Bedfordshire uncovered worrying trends of increased sexual exploitation of young people by their peers. Violence and sexual aggression in relationships has become too common for British young people. To overcome that, they need to be able to make positive choices for their own future.
	The work on young people’s understanding is really important. This crime is almost unlike any other, because the victim tends to feel responsible or, indeed, is sometimes deemed responsible by society as a result of their actions. We do not tell burglary victims, “It’s your fault, because you haven’t got a burglar alarm,” yet society too often tells victims of rape and sexual violence, “It’s your fault. You were drunk and wearing sexually provocative clothing.” Those attitudes are absorbed by young women so that they think it is their fault.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case for statutory education. On teaching girls about consent, is it not just as important that boys also learn that no always means no?

Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend is right. In preparing for this debate, I have been looking at research about whether sex and relationships education actually works. One of the things that that has shown is that there is further to go with boys than girls. We should take that very seriously, because we need to address the level of tolerance that young boys seem to have towards violence, seeing it as relatively normal. We do not know why that is.

Sandra Osborne: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Fiona Mactaggart: If I keep giving way I will take up too much of the debate, so I will try to resist, but if any Members are really assertive I will give way. How about that for a deal?
	Research shows that young men have a higher tolerance of sexual violence than young women. Although both are changed by good-quality sex and relationships education, the sad thing is that a lot of research studies show that the young men move from a very bad set of attitudes to about where the young women’s attitudes start. The young women get more confidence and change their attitudes a lot by understanding that it is not tolerable to put up with physical violence, sexting, sexual bullying or being barged about.
	As I have said, I used to be a teacher and a teacher educator in the days when things were much worse. I remember a teacher education resource about computers in education. In those days, computers were rather new in the classroom and the resource stated how the boys would be really excited about them and how the girls’ ribs would be bruised as the boys pushed past them to get to the computers because they enjoyed the lesson so much. That was a resource for people learning to teach. It indicated a tolerance of violence in the classroom that is utterly unacceptable, and that is the reason why I think the motion will do more to prevent the violence that too many women and men in our society face.
	I have discussed successful sex and relationships education and how it can change things. Some of it is successful and some of it is very bad. Ofsted’s report says that about three quarters of the lessons observed were good and about a quarter were poor. Of the good lessons, Ofsted noticed that the bit that was not so good was relationships education. I think that we have created an education system that focuses far too much on the mechanics of sex and not sufficiently on autonomy, the right to say no, positive relationships and empowering young women in that way.
	I commend the evidence sent by the PSHE Association, which provides teachers with assistance on personal, social, health and economic education. It notes that about 40% of 16 to 18-year-old students have not received or cannot remember lessons or information on sexual consent. Only 6% of respondents said that they got the information on relationships that they needed in PSHE. It points out that good quality PSHE teaching not only helps to raise young people’s awareness of abuse, but supports those who experience abuse to develop practical strategies and skills to stop it, and that it challenges prevailing negative attitudes towards women and girls. We know that this can work and prevent the appalling problem of young girls thinking that violent, abusive relationships are normal and that the controlling way in which their so-called boyfriends manage their behaviour is acceptable.
	In view of the cases in Oxford, I asked my local police commander whether there was the same problem in my area of the exploitation of young girls by organised gangs which seduce them with violence, bullying, presents and threats. He said that he did not think that there was an organised gang in Slough, but that he had identified about 12 young women who are very vulnerable, but who think that they just have boyfriends and are not at risk.
	That is why we need this education. We need it to enable girls to be safe. We need it to enable boys to know that such behaviour is absolutely unacceptable
	throughout society, even if it happens behind closed doors. We need it to ensure that people who have been victims of violence know that it is not their fault. We must make a society in which all those things are real. I believe that excellent sex and relationships education based on zero tolerance to violence will deliver that. We are still miles behind according to the evidence that has been sent to us by groups such as the National Union of Students, which reports that many students still face sexual bullying and violence as the norm in colleges and universities.
	This motion, if implemented, could really make the difference. I urge the Minister in his summing up to tell us that he will talk to his colleagues in the Department for Education, which in my view has done less than his Department to deal with this issue, and remind them that this is not something for the future; this is urgent.

Lindsay Hoyle: There is a six-minute limit on speeches. We may have to reduce that towards the end of the debate.

Claire Perry: I congratulate hon. Members from all parts of the House on securing this important debate on the day of One Billion Rising. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on leading a fantastic cross-party group in Parliament square. It is a shame that the Metropolitan police tried to move us on. [Laughter.] They did not succeed, I might add.
	I am pleased to speak in this debate for a couple of reasons. First, like many Members, I am a parent. I have two teenage daughters and was lucky enough to bring one of them to the event today. I find it impossible to disagree with the heart of the motion and what it is trying to do.
	When I look at the UK, I think how lucky and privileged we are in many ways. I returned recently from a trip to Afghanistan. The sorts of rights, freedoms and protections that are afforded to us and our children are still wishful thinking for an enormous proportion of the women in that country.
	There are some chilling points that we are right to discuss in this debate. I was interested to read an attitude to violence survey conducted among young people in Wiltshire in 2009—the latest research that I could find—in which a quarter of the children surveyed said that they thought that violence was okay in some or all cases. They thought that it was particularly okay in relationships, for example if somebody found out that their partner was cheating on them. I find that shocking. I find it particularly shocking that one in five young girls agreed with that statement. I also noted that 56% of the young people questioned said that they had witnessed domestic violence. Although some of the methodology was a little suspect—the categories included “parents checking up on my movements”—the survey provides food for thought.

Philip Davies: Given that violence is such a big problem, is my hon. Friend not also concerned that only 34% of men and 17% of women who are sentenced for violence against the person are sent to prison? Does that not send out a very bad message about how seriously we take violence against the person in this country?

Claire Perry: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, particularly with regard to violence by women that is directed towards men, but that is not the purpose of this debate. There are wrinkles in that matter that I do not want to go into. However, it is important that we hear male voices in this debate and I welcome the Minister to his position.
	I want to talk about what we have done already. I am very proud of the Home Secretary. That statement might not receive wide cross-party support, but we have taken some important steps, as did the previous Government. We have provided stable funding for those who counsel and support victims of violence. I know from the domestic violence support centre in Devizes that the stability of that funding is very welcome. We have put new funding into a number of initiatives. We have trialled domestic violence protection orders. I am proud that those have been trialled in my constituency. It would be wonderful if the Minister could tell us when we might hear the results of those pilots and whether the orders will be adopted nationally.
	We have also introduced Clare’s law, which has been campaigned for so effectively by many Members across the House. We have started to criminalise the serious offences of forced marriage and female genital mutilation —problems that have bedevilled us for many years. We have introduced a campaign that focuses on the problem of teenage rape, which tells young girls that it is wrong. Importantly, we have reformed stalking law to help those who are stalked.
	A special subject for me is online violence, abuse and bullying, particularly against women and girls. Again, there has been extraordinary cross-party support in this area, for which we are all grateful. I do not mean to scaremonger, but it seems to me that we are conducting a long-term experiment with our children, particularly our girls and young women, by exposing them so freely to the violent, degrading and sexualised content of the online world.
	There are two buckets of problems that we are trying to deal with. The first is children looking at third-party content on websites. I may be classified as the Mary Whitehouse 2.0 of my generation, but I do not mind what people call me. With the support of Members from across the House, we have made extraordinarily good progress in bringing the internet service providers to a point where they will all introduce filters that provide protection on all devices in the home by the end of the year. The fundamental problem is that only four in 10 families with children currently use filters. That means that six out of 10 children live in a filter-free environment. By the end of this year, public wi-fi will not allow adult content by default. Mobile phone operators are also making tremendous progress in refreshing their adult content bars. That is a tribute to the energies of Members from all parts of the House, in particular the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) who has worked tirelessly on this matter.

Michael Ellis: I recognise the excellent work that my hon. Friend has being doing. As well as the online issues, is she concerned about the violence that is often depicted in games for computer consoles?

Claire Perry: My hon. Friend raises a very good point. Work is going on to put age ratings on games and also on online music videos. Perhaps I am prudish, but
	some of the stuff that one sees in the gym these days is not what I want my children to be watching. It is fine as long as it is age rated and parents know that it is available.
	On third-party content, Britain will be leading the world in the way that we protect our families. That is a tribute to the energy of this Parliament.
	The second bucket of problems is often referred to as “sexting”. That is not a term that children use and it is rather an inflammatory one. It refers to user-generated content that we would all recognise if we saw it. The problem is children and young people exchanging inappropriate images, content and messages. That is a huge, growing and endemic problem and we have no idea how big it is. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children published qualitative research last year that suggested that it is almost the norm in schools for children to receive and exchange this sort of information.
	There have been some extraordinarily tragic cases. Chevonea Kendall-Bryan, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), committed suicide after being forced to perform a sex act on a boy and then pleading with him to remove the image. Records show that she had sent him a text message saying:
	“How much can I handle? HONESTLY. I beg you, delete that.”
	He did not delete the image and she fell to her death from a window. That is a tragic case.
	Only yesterday, another colleague gave me an e-mail from a woman saying that her 12-year-old daughter had been seriously sexually assaulted in class at a very good independent school. This issue cuts across all boundaries and affects all parts of the country. The mother said that when she talked to her daughter about why alarms bells did not go off when the boy sent a text requesting sexual acts, her daughter looked at her as if she was mad and said, “Mum, All the boys send texts like that.” Boys as young as 11 and 12 are sending highly inappropriate photographs of their genitalia around networks via social media.

Gavin Shuker: Does the hon. Lady share the concern of many Members that seemingly mainstream companies such as Facebook have introduced applications that facilitate such behaviour through short-term images appearing and then being deleted after a number of seconds?

Claire Perry: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and that is part of the work that the UK Council for Child Internet Safety is doing with companies that want to be responsible.
	Fundamentally, this is a behavioural point, and what we need is education. Right now, there is no technology that can protect our children against this sort of thing. Parental education and the education of children are both part of the mix. I look with interest at today’s motion as a consultation is under way, and we need to see the results before finally deciding what should be in the curriculum.

Ann Coffey: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who has done some fantastic work in the area of improving online protection for children.
	Last week, I visited the St Mary’s sexual assault referral centre, which was the first of its kind to be established in the UK. There are now 41 across England and Wales. St Mary’s sees women, men and children, the youngest being three weeks old and the eldest 93 years old, and has more than 1,000 cases a year, of which just under half are children. The centre provides a range of services, including forensic medical examinations to collect evidence and document injuries; counselling, including pre-trial therapy; child advocates to support children and families; a young person’s advocate aimed at identifying those at risk of being sexually exploited; and independent sexual violence advisers, who offer practical support through the process.
	The recent tragic suicide of Frances Andrade demonstrates the extent of the psychological damage suffered as a result of sexual assault, its enduring nature and the risk to victims of court proceedings. St Mary’s provides a holistic service to meet individual needs so that victims do not have to fight their way through various referral criteria and thresholds to get help. It is a valuable and important resource with a committed and experienced team.
	Greater Manchester police have predominantly funded the sexual assault referral centre, including follow-on psychosocial support, in the belief, supported by evidence, that if victims feel supported they are more likely to have confidence and therefore continue with the criminal justice process. There are concerns, however, that changes as part of the restructuring of the NHS in April 2013, and changes in police funding in 2015, will result in deficit funding and the fragmentation of services that are currently offered at St Mary’s. Without those services, an 80-year-old woman would not be able to talk about the abuse that she has kept secret for years, and children who have been sexually exploited would not get the support that they need to feel confident enough to be a witness against their abuser in court. I would be grateful if the Minister could look into that for me.
	Of course it would be better if children never had to be referred to St Mary’s, as the team there would agree, but that means that we need much earlier intervention in children’s lives. I have talked to the team working with sexually exploited children referred by the police as the result of an investigation, and they told me that children were sometimes reluctant to talk to them as they did not initially see themselves as sexually exploited. It is horrifying that many sexually exploited children are subjected to intimidation, coercion, blackmail and threats of violence, but it is equally shocking that others think their abuser cares about them.
	To understand what we need to put in place to prevent violence and the abuse of children, we need to understand the long, sad journey of some children to becoming victims of sexual exploitation. They are often the type of neglected children about whom Action for Children talked in its recent report—children who feel so alone and so lacking in self-esteem that they welcome any attention, and who have no understanding of what a caring relationship is about because they have never seen one. Often, such children never reach the threshold for intervention by any services, so their neglect goes undetected. We can see why they are vulnerable to sexual grooming and how important it is to identify vulnerable children in their early childhood.
	That is why I am impressed by Stockport’s supporting families pathway, which enables referrals to all council and other local services to be recorded on a single shared database. That means that a complete picture of a child’s life can be built up, and there can be early detection of children who are struggling. At the moment, the model that we have means that children have to reach a certain threshold to be referred to services, and that threshold is often reached far too late in a child’s life. The sharing of data across all agencies would enable a vulnerable child to be identified much earlier. The question would then be not whether their need was great enough to access services but what would be the most appropriate intervention that we could make to help them.
	Of course, schools have an important role in safeguarding children. I believe that compulsory sex and relationship education in schools would give children and young people the confidence to reject inappropriate relationships.

Claire Perry: Does the hon. Lady agree that the consultation on computing content is an encouraging part of the consideration of the new curriculum? That includes communicating safely and respectfully online, keeping personal information private and general common sense in the internet space. That would go some way towards dealing with some of the problems that she has addressed.

Ann Coffey: I do agree, and I was interested to hear the hon. Lady talk about that yesterday.
	Sex and relationship education in schools is very important, because it can help children to understand when they are being groomed by older men for sexual exploitation or involved in sexually coercive relationships by their peers. Both the Director of Public Prosecutions and the deputy Children’s Commissioner have spoken recently about the impact of pornography on young men who commit sexual and relationship violence. I was also concerned to read in a report by the chief inspector of probation, out last week, that some professionals fail to combat sexual offending by children because they miss warning signs. That report, conducted by probation inspectors, studied 24 teenage boys with convictions ranging from indecent assault to rape and found that opportunities to intervene when the offender was young had been missed in nearly every case.

Fiona Mactaggart: Action is needed not just when the offender is young but when the victim is young. It seems clear from the reports that we read of the case in Oxford that the police did not act fast enough when young women first disclosed that they were unhappy about how their controllers were treating them.

Ann Coffey: I agree, of course, and as I have just said, it is important to identify child sex offenders as well as children who are sexually offended against.
	Sex and relationship education has an important role in challenging at an early age attitudes in boys that result in sexually offending behaviour. With better inter-agency working, data collecting, early intervention and compulsory sex and relationship education in schools, we can make a start on preventing harm from coming to our children, but I fear that centres such as St Mary’s will be needed for some time. I believe that without
	St Mary’s, there would be more tragic deaths among victims of sexual abuse. We want a better world in which victims are not afraid to speak out and perpetrators cannot rely on the silence of their victims. It is really good to see support from all parties for the excellent motion that my hon. Friend has tabled, because each of us is trying to make a difference in our own different ways. After all, 1 billion voices cannot be wrong.

Philip Davies: It is traditional on these occasions for me to be a lone voice—in fact, that is customary in most debates. I intend to continue that tradition today.
	Of course, we are all united in our opposition to any violence against women and girls. I would be astounded if any of us were not. I pride myself on being renowned as one of the most hard-line Members when it comes to matters of law and order and sentencing. I always find it rather strange that those who speak passionately about how we should have zero tolerance of any violence against people, which I agree with, are often the same people who then argue that the perpetrators of violence should do anything but be sent to prison. As I made clear in an intervention, we are in the ridiculous situation whereby, of people convicted of violence against the person in this country, only 35% of men and, shockingly, only 17% of women are sent to prison. If we really want to send out a message of zero tolerance towards violence against people, the first thing we ought to do is press for much tougher sentences for people guilty of it. That would be a better way of deterring crime than the education route that the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) thinks will solve these problems.

Madeleine Moon: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should never try to prevent crime, that we should never intervene and try to educate and divert people from crime, and that we should always wait until they commit a crime and then lock them up for as long as possible? Is that not nonsense?

Philip Davies: The hon. Lady seems to forget that for many people, respite from violence comes when the perpetrator of that violence is sent to prison. That is one of our best deterrents against violence. When people are prosecuted and not sent to prison, the violence continues. Sending people to prison is one of the best things we can do. It seems that Opposition Members are less keen on a zero tolerance approach to violence than their rhetoric suggests.
	Given the title of the motion, we could be forgiven for thinking that the only—or main—victims of violent crime are women and girls, and that it does not apply to men or boys. In a debate that I secured in Westminster Hall last year on female offenders, I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Mrs Grant) that the reality of these matters sometimes differs from the rhetoric. After the debate I asked her in a parliamentary question whether she accepted that the figures I had quoted were correct. I received a reply which seemed to indicate that she did
	believe those figures were correct, and given that they are the Ministry of Justice’s own figures, I will continue to use them.

Sandra Osborne: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the vast majority of incidents of violence against women and girls never get anywhere near the criminal justice system?

Philip Davies: The hon. Lady may well be right and we certainly need to do something about that. I do not disagree with that point.
	I want to quote the most recent biennial statistics—from November 2012—from the Ministry of Justice on the representation of females and males in the criminal justice system. They confirm that men are twice as likely to be the victim of violent crime as women. Some 2% of women interviewed for the crime survey for England and Wales reported being victims of violence, compared with 4% of men. The statistics also confirm that of all incidents of violence reported in the 2011-12 crime survey, 62% of victims were male, and 38% were female.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Philip Davies: I cannot give way because time is limited and I have already accepted two interventions. There will be plenty of opportunity for people to make their points. My point also applies to children. Again, according to the Ministry of Justice biennial statistics and the British crime survey, a smaller proportion of girls than boys reported being victims of violence—5% of girls versus 11% of boys.
	It is not just violence generally where men do worse than women. Women accounted for between 27% to 32% of recorded homicide victims between 2006-07 and 2010-11, while men were victims in between 68% and 73% of cases. We all agree that women are more likely to be victims of domestic violence. In the past, the Minister has stated that 7% of women are victims of domestic violence, but so are 5% of men. It is not just an issue for women.

Claire Perry: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Philip Davies: I have already explained that I cannot give way.
	Those figures do not tell the full story because they relate to all abuse and all violence in households. In partner abuse, 4.2% of women are victims and 3% are men. Men and women are both victims of domestic violence and partner abuse. We must also bear in mind that the definition of domestic violence includes non-violent components.

Eleanor Laing: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Philip Davies: I have not got time to give way; there is a short time limit and there will be plenty of time for other cases to be made during the rest of the debate.
	I also want to talk about the perpetrators of violent crime—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. There are too many private conversations and it is difficult to hear Mr Davies. I am sure we all want to hear what he has to say—[Interruption.] Perhaps not, but at least he can enjoy it.

Philip Davies: That is part of the problem, Mr Deputy Speaker. They do not want to hear anyone who does not agree with them. One could be forgiven for thinking that the perpetrators of all these crimes were men and not often women, but again, that is not true. There are many female perpetrators of violence against both women and men, and according to official Ministry of Justice figures, the most common offence group for which both males and females were arrested during a five-year period was violence against the person—34% of females and 31% of males arrested in 2010-11 were arrested for violence against the person. Again, that is not restricted to women but applies also to girls. In 2010-11, violence against the person was the most common offence group for which juvenile females were arrested.
	I am afraid that time does not allow me to go through those figures in more detail, which I would like to do.

Claire Perry: rose—

Philip Davies: I will take a quick intervention from my hon. Friend.

Claire Perry: May I offer my hon. Friend a slight lifeline? Does he at least agree with the first part of the motion, which is a call to end violence against women and girls?

Philip Davies: Absolutely. As I said at the start, we all want to end violence against women and girls, but—unlike some others, it seems—I want to end all violence. I do not take the view that violence against women and girls is somehow worse than violence against men and boys. As far as I am concerned, all violence is unacceptable and all violence against the person should be punished by law. We should not try to segregate men and women in the criminal justice system. Both men and women are victims, and both are perpetrators of crime. I believe in true equality and want people to be treated equally when they are a victim of crime and when they are a perpetrator of crime. At the moment, whether people like it or not, men are treated more harshly than women in the criminal justice system, certainly when it comes to sentencing. That is an inconvenient truth for many people.

Valerie Vaz: It is traditional to say that it is a pleasure to follow the previous speaker, in this case the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), even if I do not subscribe to the views expressed. Hopefully the hon. Gentleman will now hear the other side of the argument.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to this debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) for leading our request to the Committee. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) who encouraged us all to get involved and has been absolutely committed. Unfortunately, she could not speak in the Backbench
	Business Committee debate, but she is a perfect example of a woman’s place being not only in Parliament, but on the Front Bench. This has been a cross-party issue—I was going to say cross-gender, but that has a completely different meaning. I should also mention my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who attended the Backbench Business Committee debate with us.
	Today, in London, we are debating violence against women and girls, but people are responding to this call from the shores of Brazil, from Australia with the Girlpower Goddess and White Ribbon event, and from India, where there was a flash mob in Parliament square and the song, “Jago Delhi Jago”—Rise Delhi, Rise. We know that two months’ ago in Delhi, five men were accused of the rape and murder of a 23-year-old medical student who did nothing but sit on a bus. People in Delhi have risen up, and we are saying yes to this day of action to end violence against women. The movement was started by Eve Ensler, but the tsunami has been pushed forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow.
	I pay tribute to a friend of mine, the late Malcolm Richards. He used to be a journalist on the Brentford and Chiswick Times, which was part of the Richmond and Twickenham Times that I worked for as part of the Dimbleby newspaper group. He brought to the world’s attention the first woman’s refuge in Chiswick, started by Erin Pizzey. Both Malcolm and Erin were able to say to women, “We hear your silent scream and there is a safe place for you.” There is now a network of 45 safe houses that provide emergency accommodation for women and children.
	This debate shows that around the world today there are still practices that victimise women and treat us as second class. We want to end the practice of the badly named “honour” killings, where women are killed for alleged behaviour and for bringing shame on their family although the behaviour of men is tolerated. There are 5,000 of those killings worldwide. We want to put an end to the dowry system where the payment of a sum effectively buys a female, a girl, for marriage. We need to end the terrible practice of female genital mutilation, which has no base in culture or religion. I applaud the bravery of midwives such as Alison Byrne in that respect, and draw the House’s attention to a conference in the Liverpool women’s hospital on 6 March, which will educate and inform women to try to end the practice.
	What about modern-day slavery? Eighty per cent. of people who are trafficked are women. War rages in trouble spots throughout the world—rape is used as a weapon of war. The UN says that the roots of violence against women lie in the unequal power relationship between men and women, and persistent discrimination against women.
	The debate is not about women and girls as victims, but about empowerment. Malala Yousef stood up and was almost killed because she wanted every girl to go to school. Women have been empowered by microfinance, although they might still be exploited. Those who stand up for no more page 3 say that women do not want to be objects in a newspaper. The first woman doctor had to pretend for 46 years that she was a man called James Barry so that she could qualify, but women now make up 50% of entrants. Carrie Morrison, who was the first woman to qualify as a solicitor, stood up. The women
	who gave us the vote stood up. The women MPs from Tanzania, Pakistan and Afghanistan, whom I have met, are trying to increase the quota of women MPs from 30% to 50%. Thirty per cent. is not enough in Tanzania. Parliament has celebrated Aung San Suu Kyi, who must daily stand up to those who try to take away human rights and progress made by democracy. We must highlight and support those women.
	I have mentioned action around the world, but more importantly, what about the action through the generations, from our mothers, who sometimes did two jobs—working in the home and outside—to the suffragettes and suffragists, who gave us the vote, and the women in the peace camps at Greenham Common. All those women here and around the world have stood up. On this day, we recognise and celebrate their courage.

Heather Wheeler: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate being called now, because—unfortunately—I have to go to the Westminster Hall debate at 1.25 pm. I want to talk about protecting future generations of women and girls from violence and forced marriage.
	Worldwide, 10 million girls are married each year before they are 18, which is equivalent to more than 27,000 girls per day, or 19 every minute. In the developing world, one in three girls will be married before they are 18. In October last year on the first international day of the girl, the United Nations population fund released new data that predict that, by 2020, if child marriage prevalence trends continue, 142 million girls will be married before they are adults and, because of the rising global population, that means an increase in child marriage to around 14 million girls per year.
	In most cases, laws and international conventions are in place to protect children from being forced into marriage, yet Governments fail to implement those protections. We do not know exactly how many British girls face forced marriage, but evidence shows that they are being taken out of the country to be married against their will. Here in the UK, families are also getting children married off in the community or in religious ceremonies. Some take advantage of the fact that the law in Britain allows the marriage of 16 and 17-year-olds with parental consent.
	Understanding the causes and consequences of early and forced marriage is paramount in preventing girls from losing their childhood, their dreams and the opportunities to make their own choices about their lives and relationships. Causes and practices vary according to context, yet there are common themes. In some areas, child marriage has been practised for many centuries, while in others it emerges as a response to conditions of crisis, including political instability, natural disaster and civil unrest.
	Poverty and gender inequality are common drivers of child marriage. Many parents marry their daughters off young to protect them from poverty, sexual harassment, the stigma of extramarital sex, and sexually transmitted infections. They also marry daughters off to reduce their own economic burdens, and yet child marriage entrenches those problems and does little to protect girls or boys.
	In the developing world, a lack of access to education is both a symptom and a cause of child marriage, especially for girls, many of whom get very little formal education because they are valued more for their future roles as wives and mothers. As a result, they miss out on opportunities to learn, to build financial independence and to make autonomous decisions about their futures. Those effects are passed on to successive generations.
	Child marriage is a shocking infringement of human rights and the rights of the child. It has many significant and worrying consequences. It leads to higher rates of maternal mortality and morbidities; it contributes to infant mortality and poor child development; it is associated with violence, rape and sexual abuse, resulting in emotional and psychological problems, desertion and divorce; and it increases population growth and hinders sustainable development.

Mary Macleod: In Bangladesh, an eight-year-old child ran away from her 60-year-old husband whom she had been forced to marry, and had acid poured over her. She has no life at all and is not supported or protected in the least. We must protect against such things.

Heather Wheeler: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. The stories one hears from around the world are shocking.
	Child marriage takes away opportunities for education and training, and removes autonomy. It removes economic independence, undermines self-confidence and reaffirms gender stereotypes. It is associated with, and helps to perpetuate, harmful traditional practices, including female genital mutilation. It is a severe threat to combating poverty and the achievement of the millennium development goals.
	As the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on population, development and reproductive health, I want to highlight child marriage and maternal and reproductive health, in response to “A Childhood Lost”, the group’s report, which was published last year following parliamentary hearings. The consequences of child marriage for maternal and reproductive health are grave. Child brides are unable to negotiate protected sex with their husbands, and are often under pressure to start bearing children immediately, which leads to a prolonged period of reproduction and larger numbers of children.
	Girls under 15 are five times more likely to die in childbirth than women in their 20s, and also face much higher chances than older women of experiencing pregnancy-related injuries such as fistulas, and of contracting sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The children of child brides are 60% more likely to die before the age of one than children whose mothers are aged 19 or over. Those problems are compounded by the fact that child brides are often unable to access life-saving health care for themselves and their children, including contraception, family planning advice and maternal health care.
	The British Government have demonstrated a strong political will to tackle forced marriage in the UK and abroad, and a Bill to criminalise the offence in the UK is being drafted. As I said at the beginning, legislation is not enough to combat child marriage. Governments need to revise laws and policies on related important issues such as divorce, inheritance and property ownership to protect girls. Improved co-operation is needed across
	Government Departments and embassies, including in the UK. Other harmful practices such as female genital mutilation need to be tackled, and access to sexual and reproductive health services, improved registration systems, and professional support and shelters, are essential.
	I am interested to know whether the Government will consider including child marriage in the personal, social, health and economic education curriculum; whether they will make registration of religious marriages compulsory in the UK; and whether they will increase the minimum legal age for marriage to 18 when criminalising child marriage. I urge the Department for International Development and other donors to evaluate existing interventions so that aid is spent effectively, and to scale up programmes to prevent child marriage and support survivors. The Department for International Development has shown great leadership in family planning via the June 2012 family planning summit. We need to work to meet the needs of family planning, and sexual, reproductive and maternal health care of girls and women of all ages, whatever their marital status.
	We parliamentarians must work with colleagues in other countries, particularly in the developing world, to galvanise political will and to share best practice in tackling child marriage through programmes and services, and legislative reform and implementation. We urgently need to do something for women worldwide whose cries are not heard.

Karl Turner: I am grateful to have been called to speak in this important and timely debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), who has been a strong voice for women and girls since her election.
	It is estimated that, in Hull, almost 25,000 women and more than 18,000 children will experience domestic violence each year. To put that in real terms, three or four children in every classroom experience domestic violence. Humberside police respond to some 55 incidents of domestic violence every month, and 81% of victims are female. Children who live with domestic violence have an increased risk of behavioural problems and emotional trauma. Mental health difficulties will definitely arise in their adult lives as a result of their experiences.
	Hull has been working hard to address the problem. The local primary care trust, working with Hull city council, has implemented the Strength to Change programme. This is a voluntary scheme aimed at men who are often the perpetrators of domestic violence. It is a groundbreaking project that makes a real difference to victims of violence. There is an excellent women’s centre in my constituency, Purple House, which provides support for hundreds of women victims. However, cuts are affecting these projects, and there is currently a review to decide whether these vital services are necessary—they definitely are.
	The total cost of domestic abuse to the criminal justice system, health, social services and housing amounts to approximately £3.8 billion a year. It is clear that to prevent violence against women and girls, we need to do more to ensure both young men and young women are educated to develop positive and equal relationships with their peers. That education and support must start in schools. Statutory personal relationship education
	and early intervention in schools will help to change attitudes and behaviour towards domestic violence. Schools need to play a key role in educating boys and girls to realise that violence and abuse in relationships are completely unacceptable. I therefore urge the Government to make sex and relationships education statutory and standardised.
	In the time left, I want to speak to an issue that is an absolute catastrophe and a scandal: female genital mutilation. The Government estimate that approximately 20,000 under-15-year-olds are at risk from this practice every year—more than 50 young female victims every day. It is important to make the point that such mutilation is motivated only by the need to control women. It is bullying, and the most grotesque abuse towards women. Female genital mutilation has been a criminal offence since 1985. It is shocking that we have not yet seen a single prosecution. We have seen some positive steps in recent weeks and months, with the Crown Prosecution Service refocusing on this area, and I welcome the publication of its action plan. However, to eradicate this practice we need cross-departmental work involving the Home Office, Department for Education, Department of Health and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and proper funding. We need to secure justice for victims and prosecution will prevent future victims of this despicable criminality. We must remember that this is a crime and that people should face the law when they carry out this vile and abusive violence.

Jane Ellison: I welcome the speech that the hon. Gentleman is making, and I also welcome the Westminster Hall debate he secured recently on this topic. I am sure he welcomes, as I do, the commitment the Home Secretary made on Monday to look closely at bringing forward a prevalence study in the UK to update our data, and, in particular, to make sure that the NHS records female genital mutilation.

Karl Turner: I agree entirely with the hon. Lady, who has done a great deal of work on this issue as the chair of the all-party group on female genital mutilation.
	I will make one final point. The Metropolitan police set up Project Azure to tackle the problem of female genital mutilation across the country. However, a freedom of information request showed that the team consists of just one full-time police officer and one part-time police officer. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that this is sufficient policing. I welcome the Home Secretary’s work, but we need more resources to police this most disgusting violence against women and young girls.

Michael Ellis: I support what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I agree that the issue of female genital mutilation is important. I appreciate the difficulty in detecting and prosecuting cases, but it is important that prosecutions follow as this is an horrific crime. On the subject of statistics, does he agree that the reason why most statistics show men as the victims of crime is that men are mostly the perpetrators of crime?

Karl Turner: I am not necessarily sure that the hon. Gentleman’s latter point is entirely correct. What I will say is that his initial point was absolutely correct. I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will end my remarks now.

Sarah Wollaston: As a former police victim examiner and doctor, I have seen deeply traumatised women in the middle of the night in the immediate aftermath of horrific sexual violence. I have also, as a doctor, met women in their 80s and 90s who are still suffering a lifetime of consequences. There is nothing new about sexual violence, but what has changed is the normalisation and acceptance of sexual violence within our society, and that is something that we really have to address. I am proud to be a patron of Devon Rape Crisis, and I welcome the £40 million that has gone towards setting up a network of rape crisis centres around the country. When I was a victim examiner, that was not available.

Bob Stewart: I am shocked that my hon. Friend suggests that there is a normalisation of violence. Will she define exactly what she means?

Sarah Wollaston: That is an important point, but before I come to it, I would like to pay tribute to the 27 remarkable, talented and skilled volunteer women who work for Devon Rape Crisis in my area.
	I will address my hon. Friend’s point. What do I mean by “normalisation”? Well, for example, 80% of 15 to 17-year-old boys are now regularly accessing hardcore pornography. To my mind, that constitutes normalisation, as does the issue of sexting, which my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) mentioned, and the extent to which it goes unchallenged. One might say that this is a milder example, but when I go into the Tea Rooms in the House of Commons and see colleagues reading newspapers with images that objectify women, I find that offensive. I find it a normalisation that across the country young girls are sitting in households where they see such sexualisation of women as a normal portrayal of women. People may find me prudish, but I assure hon. Members that there is nothing that makes me blush. These are not blushes, but anger. That is what I would term as normalisation, and I hope I have answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart).

Bob Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend for her explanation.

Sarah Wollaston: That is wonderful.
	It is crucial that we challenge through education the normalisation of sexualisation and violence towards women, but it has to be the right education. We need to make better use of peer educators. It is no use having an embarrassed teacher who blushes when talking about sex and sexual violence. Often, the best educators are peer educators, particularly those who have been victims and are prepared to talk about the impact that has had on their lives. We want the right people delivering that education, and of course “the right people” includes families. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes pointed out, parents should be aware of what their children are accessing and not be embarrassed to talk to them and challenge attitudes as they develop.
	We also need to do something about prosecution and the number of people being brought to book for such crimes. Partly, that is about encouraging women to report crimes. From having spoke to women, I know how incredibly challenging that can be and how brave
	women have to be to come forward and go through the criminal justice system, so it is disappointing that there seems to be a perception in some quarters that women should not be encouraged to report these crimes. In my opinion, that amounts to collusion in a process that says, “Don’t report!” We need to challenge those attitudes and provide the kind of support given by Rape Crisis and the professionals in sexual assault referral centres across the country.
	In conclusion, we need to challenge attitudes, encourage reporting, put an end to normalisation and see an improvement in the support provided through our criminal justice system in order to ensure that perpetrators of sexual crimes against women know that they will pay for their crimes.

Luciana Berger: On the day when we celebrate love and romance, I am glad to take part in a debate that seeks to ensure that no one should ever be subject to a mentally or physically abusive relationship. I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on securing the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on her work in raising the profile of the incredible One Billion Rising campaign.
	Despite Liverpool being the second safest city, victims of domestic violence make more than one in five of all 999 calls to Merseyside police—the highest rate in the country. That amounts to 43,995 calls. The increase in the incidence of domestic violence across Merseyside is staggering, with 32,511 incidents having been reported in the last year—an increase of 36% from 2003. This situation cannot continue. It is a terrible indictment that in 2013 in the UK one in six children aged 11 to 17 experience sexual abuse and that 109 women and girls lost their lives last year at the hands of a partner or former partner.
	At least 750,000 children a year witness domestic violence. Although that affects both girls and boys—I note the point made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—80% of calls to ChildLine on abuse were from girls. The statistics on that are many. Even if the Government do not accept the enduring physical, psychological, emotional and social consequences experienced by too many women across our country because of this terrible crime, it must surely be in their interest, given that according the Home Office violence against women and girls costs the public purse £36.7 billion a year, to address these heinous crimes and do more about this stain on our national conscience.
	We have a serious problem in our society when findings from the crime survey in England and Wales show that one in 12 people think that a victim is completely or mostly responsible for someone sexually assaulting them when they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or when they are sexually assaulted by someone they were flirting with heavily beforehand. No one in the country should ever blame a victim for the crimes perpetrated against them.
	Is this any wonder when too many abusers are glorified? Perhaps one of the most famous cases of domestic violence was in March 2009, when the music artist Chris Brown was charged for, and pleaded guilty to, assaulting Rihanna. Members will remember the shocking photos of Rihanna in our press—her lip was split and she had a bloody nose and major contusions on either
	side of her face—yet two years later Chris Brown was given an international platform at the Grammies. This is the man who subsequently got a tattoo on his neck showing a woman bearing a striking similarity to Rihanna and the scars of a serious beating.
	We heard the other week that some of our major supermarkets are stocking an energy drink called Black Energy promoted by the convicted rapist Mike Tyson. It uses the slogan “Sex energy” and includes a series of adverts in which he is surrounded by scantily clad women in bikinis and calls himself “an animal”. I remind the House that this is a man who spent three years in jail for his heinous crimes. We also heard last year about the tragic story of a girl from Battersea who did not report a rape at the age of 11 because of a storyline in “Eastenders” that made her so worried about the court process that she thought she would not be supported.

Jim Shannon: I understand that a television advertising campaign beginning today or tomorrow will highlight the fact that 30% of young girls are sexually assaulted and that 25% are physically abused. Does the hon. Lady believe that such a campaign will help to reduce those figures?

Luciana Berger: We know that there has been a massive reduction, if not a complete moratorium, on the Government spending money on public information adverts. I think, however, that money spent in this area would be welcome, so I hope that the Minister will think seriously about allocating some of the budget to informing and educating the public about domestic violence and abuse, particularly at a time when this crime is on the increase.
	There are people committed to tackling violence against women and girls. In Merseyside, our recently elected police and crime commissioner, my predecessor, Jane Kennedy, signed up to a dedicated series of pledges to tackle violence against women and girls that included maintaining specialist domestic violence and public protection units within the police service, which are at risk across the country owing to police cuts; delivering specialist training in domestic and sexual violence; and developing the roll-out of an integrated local action plan to tackle violence against women and girls. In December, we also saw the launch of the Draw and Line campaign, specifically aimed at combating domestic violence.
	The reason for today’s debate, however, is that we need to do even more. We need our schools to do everything they can to educate the next generation. We recently saw the One Billion Rising sessions that took place across the country—we had one in Liverpool, at which women called for the statutory introduction of sex and relationships education in all our schools. We also need urgently to challenge the stereotypes in the press and media and to teach both girls and boys about how to respect each other in relationships. We need these statutory provisions to make personal, social and health education, including a zero-tolerance approach to violence and abuse in relationships, a requirement in every school in our land.
	Just before this debate, as has been mentioned, we came together in Parliament square in support of the One Billion Rising campaign and heard the names of
	the 109 women murdered last year by a present or former partner. It was tragic. The reason for the debate is that we need to do everything we can to ensure that we never have to read out the names of 109 women again.

Mary Macleod: On 16 December last year, a 23-year-old medical student in Delhi was gang-raped, and 13 days later she died. If this debate today could be in her memory, showing the world that this sort of abuse cannot be tolerated, some good may come from it.
	We have already heard plenty of examples today. A girl of nine has given birth in one of Mexico’s western states. She was just eight when she became pregnant. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) has already spoken about forced marriage. Only 25 years ago in the UK, it was not considered an offence to rape within marriage, and 603 million women currently live in countries where domestic violence is not considered a crime.
	One of my first cases at my weekly constituency surgery involved a girl who came to see me with her mother. She was absolutely convinced that her sister had died as a result of domestic violence but that it had not been recognised by the police. A second girl who came to see me had been raped twice by a man who was about to leave prison after serving a sentence for a separate offence. She was absolutely petrified, and the following weekend she ended up in hospital after having tried to take her own life. All this is happening right on our doorstep. We do not need to look at what is going on internationally; it is happening right in front of us.
	I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) mention Chiswick, where the world’s first women’s refuge was started. I am proud to represent Chiswick today, and I believe that it is part of my remit as a Member of Parliament to stand up for all victims of domestic violence and abuse, locally and elsewhere in the country. In London, especially, we have issues. Speaking at the Tackling Britain’s Gang Culture conference last month, Chief Superintendent John Sutherland of the Metropolitan police said:
	“I regard domestic violence as the single greatest cause of harm in society.”
	He said that it was having devastating effects, and he is so right. Thankfully, the issue is at the top of the agenda in my borough of Hounslow. London has an issue with teenage girl rape, and that is something that we have to resolve.
	Now is the time to act, and I was glad to see Members from both sides of the House at the One Billion Rising rally today. Those from my side of the House included my hon. Friends the Members for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), for Battersea (Jane Ellison), for Devizes (Claire Perry), for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). We were there in Parliament square to say that enough is enough, and that now is the time to act.
	Globally, we should exert pressure through the United Nations, which is looking at the matter. UN Women was set up in 2010 to focus efforts on gender equality and the empowerment of women, and I will be going next month to the UN Commission on the Status of Women to talk about this issue.
	Here in the UK, we have made progress in some areas, including the £40 million of stable, ring-fenced funding for specialist domestic and sexual violence support services. We have increased the number of rape centres in London to four, but we need more. Stalking has been mentioned already, as has female genital mutilation, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea has done a great deal of work. Still more needs to be done. Internationally, we also need to put the pressure on and work together on conflicts, and I am glad that there will be a further debate in the Chamber today to discuss sexual violence in conflicts, because that should not be tolerated either.
	Locally, in my constituency and my borough, we have taken various kinds of action. We have the Hounslow one-stop shop, which is run by the Metropolitan police, the Hounslow community safety unit and the Hounslow domestic violence outreach service. In December last year, Operation Athena, a London-wide crackdown on domestic violence, led to 22 arrests in my borough. The JAN Trust is visiting schools in Hounslow to deliver its Mujboor—meaning “forced” in Urdu—workshops on forced marriages and to educate young girls on their rights.
	There is still much to be done, however, with regard to global awareness as well as to what we are doing right here in our own constituencies. That is where we all have a part to play. Every Member of the House can play their part by going to each of their schools—especially their secondary schools, but perhaps schools with younger children as well—and spreading the word that we can all take action on this issue. If we can encourage our colleagues to talk to young girls and boys about the issue, we will have played a part in changing the environment of violence that we see around us. There should be a zero-tolerance approach to violence and abuse in relationships, and I would like the Minister to consider whether Ofsted could measure what schools are doing to educate children in this area.
	Let us join together and say with one voice that enough is enough, that violence against women and girls will not be tolerated, and that we will make this country a much better place.

Elfyn Llwyd: It is a pleasure to follow such a fine speech from the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), and I also commend to others a reading of what the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said earlier in her moving, sensible and informative speech.
	Last year, I had the privilege of chairing the parliamentary inquiry into stalking law reform, which resulted in a new law on stalking being created. I declare an interest, as I am a practising barrister, having practised for many years in the fields of crime and domestic violence. I have seen many lives ruined by domestic violence.
	Early in 2011, I became aware of the limitations of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which eventually gave rise to the parliamentary inquiry. The panel drew its membership from both Houses of Parliament and from across the political spectrum. We considered the adequacy of the existing law and, over the course of six months, took written evidence and held five oral
	evidence sessions during which we sought the views of practitioners, legal experts, campaign groups and victims of stalking.
	The panel concluded that the existing law was not fit for purpose and, in February last year, we published a report with recommendations on how legislation and practices should be improved. Within a month of our report’s publication, the Prime Minister announced that the Government would be implementing our main recommendations, and new clauses to that effect were passed by both Houses within a staggering 11 days. I only wish that changing the law were routinely so easy.

Stephen Doughty: The right hon. Gentleman has an honourable record on these issues. What does he think about the Welsh Government’s proposals to introduce a Bill on domestic abuse and violence against women? Does he agree that such a Bill would provide an opportunity to take concrete action on this issue?

Elfyn Llwyd: I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know that the Welsh Government are proactive on these issues, and I am delighted to hear that they are taking action, because this problem is as prevalent in Wales as anywhere else. I am grateful to him for making that point.
	As of November last year, stalking is a named offence in the law of England and Wales. The new law is split into two sections, which have been added to the Protection from Harassment Act—namely, a section 2A offence, punishable by up to 51 weeks in prison or a fine, as well as the section 4A offence, which involves stalking that prompts fear of violence or serious alarm or distress. This latter offence is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine, and is triable by either a Crown court or a magistrates court.
	We felt that it was of utmost importance for the new law to take note of the fact that threats to the safety of those suffering stalking are not always physical. I do not want to enter into a debate about etymology, but I would argue that violence is not always physical. The “Oxford English Dictionary” defines violence as
	“treatment or usage tending to cause bodily injury or forcibly interfering with personal freedom.”
	It is in relation to that last part of the definition—forcibly interfering with personal freedom—that stalking can be considered an example of violence. Last year, the Association of Chief Police Officers also reviewed its definition of domestic abuse and, thankfully, it now takes account of controlling and coercive behaviour as well as of more immediate and obvious bodily harm.
	Some forms of violence against women, such as stalking, are unfortunately more subtle than others, since they involve a pattern of behaviours which, taken alone, might seem innocent, but which take on a terrible significance when viewed over a period of time. Taken out of context, sending someone flowers or always being at the same events might not seem like threatening behaviour, but for a victim of stalking, every such incident can induce feelings of anxiety, panic and acute distress.
	I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the survivors of stalking, and their families, who gave evidence to our inquiry and also acted as ambassadors
	for our campaign. Tracey Morgan, Claire Waxman and Sam Taylor gave us an insight into the sheer horror that stalking can wreak on people’s lives. Tricia Bernal and Carol Faruqui spoke bravely about the murder of their daughters, Clare and Rana, by their stalkers. John and Penny, the parents of Jane Clough, also gave evidence to our inquiry. Jane was murdered by her former partner, but only after he had raped her on nine separate occasions. When the man who was to go on to murder her was charged with those nine counts of rape, and four counts of common assault, the court made the disastrous decision to grant him bail, during which time he followed Jane and killed her.
	That is why we recommended that there should be a presumption that anybody charged with a serious violent or sexual offence should not be bailed except in the most exceptional circumstances. We also recommended that judges and magistrates should take account of previous offences as serious acts of aggravation. Raping, like stalking, is characteristic of obsessive behaviour that is likely to escalate if it is not stopped and treated. That is why it is essential that criminal justice professionals are made aware through mandatory training about the patterns of behaviour that make up these crimes.
	This motion focuses on educating the generations to come about the realities of violence against women, so as to prevent it from happening in the future. That is to be applauded, of course, but we must also tackle the prevailing attitudes. In earlier debates, we highlighted the need for a domestic abuse, stalking and harassment risk assessment—or DASH—tool. I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers has been running a trial in Hampshire for officers, but it is not sufficiently widespread.
	I would welcome any information on how many individuals have been convicted under the new stalking offences. I would also welcome an update on the Government’s intentions in respect of improving victims’ advocacy. Some of the campaigners I met over the course of our inquiry have written to me expressing concern that not enough is being done. I know the Minister will pass these questions and concerns on to his colleagues. I repeat again that training must be rolled out for all police officers, to hammer home the message that the psychological impact of these crimes is considerable.
	This law will be a step in the right direction towards ensuring that women are not subjected to violence without the perpetrators being punished. We must protect women and give them redress. This is urgently needed.

Jane Ellison: It is a pleasure to contribute to this important debate. I congratulate its sponsors, and especially the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who opened the debate.
	First, I will discuss female genital mutilation, as I have done in previous debates, but I will not talk exclusively about that subject. We have made great progress over the past few years and as a result many more Members are now talking about FGM. We have brought it into the mainstream of our political discourse, which will assist us in making further progress. FGM is a terrible thing that affects hundreds of thousands of girls around the world and here in the UK.
	I want to thank some of the people and organisations who are helping to make progress. The recent Crown Prosecution Service action plan is not just words on a piece of paper; it has genuine heart and intent behind it, and I hope it will lead to real progress. The all-party group on female genital mutilation has had some very productive meetings with Ofsted over the past year or so. It has seized on this subject, and has agreed to ask specific safeguarding questions around FGM when visiting schools that have girls from identified at-risk communities. That will also drive change.
	The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has very passionately brought to our attention the One Billion Rising campaign. She and I have debated that campaign, because as a result of my experiences in addressing FGM, I have become a little jaundiced about the possibility of changing things solely through education. Over the almost 25 years that FGM has been illegal in this country, there have been almost no referrals through the education system. In fact, it is quite difficult to get people working in education to talk about FGM issues. At the recent Home Office roundtable, a senior local government leader in London admitted that when she trained the teachers in her local authority about how to deal with FGM in schools, many of them point-blank refused to teach that it was a crime, saying that that would infringe on some people’s cultural values. That is absolutely not on. As a result, particularly in respect of FGM, I am cautious as to whether we can rely solely on education. We must instead have a multi-agency approach and massive cultural education.
	I will support the motion, of course, but we must not give the message to the people who are listening so intently to this debate that we think the One Billion Rising campaign is the only answer, because we know there is so much more to do. It might be part of the answer, but I know the Minister will talk about some of the other things that are going on, too, and we must make it clear that it is not a silver bullet and that there are lots of other steps we need to take—many of which colleagues have alluded to in the debate.
	I want to thank the Home Office, too. In November 2011, I spoke about the Dutch health passport on FGM and in less than a year—this must be record time for any Government Department to put something into action— it has brought our own version of that passport, the statement against FGM, into use in the UK. I have spoken to FGM campaigner Sister Fa, who wants to get the German Government to adopt the idea. I therefore hope that there will be a ripple effect across Europe.
	People have asked, “Is it really a passport?” I always answer, “No, it’s an empowerment document.” I hope it will empower some of the girls who have been through FGM to help their little sisters when they go back to their country of origin, so that they say to extended family members, “You’re not going to do to my little sister what you did to me, and here’s something that will tell you what the consequences are if you do.” The document will empower girls to help protect other girls.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) referred to cases involving two of my constituents. One was the tragic case of Chevonea Kendall-Bryan. She died in terrible circumstances, with lots of dreadful sexting and other things circulating about her. It was a dreadful incident. The other incident my hon. Friend mentioned involved a little girl who, for obvious reasons,
	I will not name. I spoke to her mother this morning. She re-emphasised that the problem of sexual texting and imagery going around in schools is horrendously widespread. I return to an earlier point: what do we do if we cannot stop it happening even in school, and right under the nose of teachers? This little 12-year-old girl was physically penetrated by a 12-year-old boy with his fingers in class under the nose of the teacher. We have got to get a grip on what is happening right now. It is not just about education; it is about stopping crimes being committed in class.
	Most—although perhaps not all—of us in this Chamber went to school before mobile phones were invented, let alone widespread. We do not know all the answers, therefore, and there will be girls listening to and reading this debate who might know more about what we can do. The mother of that 12-year-old girl said to me that some of the other girls in class were jealous of her daughter because they thought she had been singled out for sexual attention. If I were to send just one message out to these girls, it would be this: “Please stand together. It is not cool. It is absolutely dreadful. Make sure you don’t speak to those boys or have anything to do with them if they do this to your classmates.” We have to stand together on this issue.

Eilidh Whiteford: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), and I congratulate the Members who secured this debate, in particular the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who opened it so eloquently.
	The One Billion Rising campaign reminds us that one in three women will be raped or beaten in their lifetime. Today’s debate gives us an opportunity to commend the women and men who in so many different ways are refusing to accept the status quo and are working either to support the victims of sexual violence or to change laws, attitudes, customs and institutions that perpetuate abuses of power here at home and internationally.
	On a day when so many people around the world are celebrating loving relationships, it is important to highlight the extent to which violence against women and girls blights our individual and collective lives and to acknowledge the systemic nature of violence against women. It affects all of us, directly or indirectly, whatever our age, nationality and religion. I am sure all of us will have experienced gender-based violence or will know a friend, sister, mother, aunt or work colleague who has experienced it.
	It is also important not to be overwhelmed by the dimensions of the problem and the scale of the challenge of ending the culture of violence. Some 20 or 30 years ago domestic abuse was seen as a private family matter. Too often criminal violence in the home was not pursued as it ought to have been. It was a taboo subject. Breaking the silence around abuse has been an important milestone on the road to taking the issue seriously and tackling it. It is a multifaceted problem, but I believe it is underpinned by inequality between women and men, and is perpetuated through unacceptable abuses of power. One reason why it is so difficult to address is that it challenges deeply
	held attitudes and beliefs, understandings of justice and ingrained cultural perspectives—yet it is neither inevitable nor intractable.
	As legislators, we have a special responsibility to tackle the grave and serious human rights abuses happening in our own community. We also need to recognise that we are not impotent to deliver meaningful progress. Today’s motion has focused largely on prevention within the formal education system. Obviously, education is a devolved issue in Scotland, and the structure of the curriculum does not mirror the situation in other parts of the UK. Nevertheless, I wish colleagues well in their efforts to improve the curriculum in England and Wales, and I hope there will be reciprocal learning on how the respective education systems can rise to the challenge, especially given the alarming attitudes to sexual violence recorded among young people, to which Members have alluded. The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) talked about the normalisation of violence, so I do not see how anything could be more of a priority for us.
	One example recently brought to my attention in the Scottish context was a pilot scheme initiated by the Dundee violence against women partnership, which was an attempt to embed preventive measures in the curriculum for excellence in nursery, primary and secondary school settings. Working with a range of partners and using a rights-based approach, it tries to embed the idea that children and young people have rights and that their dignity is important. The project workers commented on how relatively easy it had been to integrate preventive measures across the curriculum. They used a thematic approach so that the issues could be addressed in an English class or a statistics class—not just in the timetabled slot for health, well-being or relationships education.
	Another key part of addressing sexual violence is ensuring that perpetrators are held more accountable for their actions within the criminal justice system. Changing attitudes and beliefs will not be enough on its own if people cannot realise their rights. I do not think it would be controversial to say that the historical track record has not been good in domestic terms.
	Again, I would like to share some perspectives from the Scottish context, which I am sure will resonate with hon. Members from other parts of the UK. I pay tribute to the Scottish Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland for its campaigning and advocacy to raise awareness and improve our legislative framework. Only one in four rape cases reported to the police in Scotland results in a prosecution; three out of four people who seek access to justice are still denied it. We know that huge numbers—perhaps a majority—of people who have been raped do not report it to the police. In that respect, confidence in the system remains far too low. Conviction rates have historically been woeful; they are improving, albeit from an abysmal starting point. It is easy to understand why many people who have experienced serious sexual assault are reluctant to put themselves through further trauma at a time when they might feel exceptionally vulnerable. Given the fairly low prospect of securing a conviction, it takes immense courage for women to come forward.
	Our criminal justice system has failed and continues to fail far too many victims of rape and sexual assault. Many of us have been deeply saddened by the dreadful revelations about the suicide of Frances Andrade. Back in 2002, an equally tragic death took place in Scotland
	when 17-year-old Lindsay Anderson took her own life shortly after giving evidence at the trial of a person subsequently convicted of raping her. What was particularly appalling was that in court Lindsay had to hold up the underwear she had been wearing at the time of the attack. It was sickening and, frankly, it still leaves me speechless. In spite of real efforts to move away from using women’s character and sexual history in court, people subjected to sexual violence are still traumatised by the process, which can compound the very real harm done by the original offence.
	I do not have much time left. Before concluding, I echo the points made earlier about the way in which women are portrayed in popular culture and about the misogyny often expressed in social media. We do not have any room for complacency. Prevention and accountability must go hand in hand. Together, we really can make progress and end—

Nigel Evans: Order.

George Freeman: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). This morning, I was not intending to speak—not because I was disinterested or uninterested, but because it seemed to me appropriate that this debate should be led by women. I have, however, been inspired by the clarity, compassion, cross-party consensus and expressions of support for the importance of this debate. My decision to speak was also provoked by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who is not in his place. I share with him a great interest in horseracing and I have a great affection for him. I thought he made some good points, but I profoundly disagree with him on one or two central points.
	I have rearranged the day in order to speak up for many of my hon. Friends whose absence should not be misconstrued as lack of interest in this important subject. I want to put on record my personal commitment to this issue; I also want to speak on behalf of women and girls in my constituency and elsewhere who perhaps fear that men are not listening, and to speak up for a modern, compassionate, progressive conservative strain of thinking, which takes this issue very seriously and applauds the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for their leadership on it.
	It seemed to me that the central point made my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley was to insist on an equality of treatment and to deny the need for any gender-based policy approach. That denies something very fundamental: that men and women are different and, in respect of sexual and physical violence, are not equal.
	Around the world—here, too, but especially in the developing world—we are witnessing a shaming prevalence of violence against women and girls, which we have a duty to tackle. I do not pretend to be an expert, but one does not need to be an expert to see the urgency of the problem. If we look around the world, we can see that the emancipation of women and the education of girls has been a profound force for good in our society and in human progress. On the subject of the education of girls, I know from my own area of science that we have a huge problem and a huge challenge in Britain to ensure
	that more of our girls are educated in a way that allows them to take part in the great opportunities of the modern economy.
	Around the world, too, we have a huge problem of sexual violence, which has been a long-standing part of too many conflicts. We heard earlier from those more eloquent than me about the problems of genital mutilation, forced marriages, sexual slavery and the human trafficking of boys and girls. We are all mindful, too, of the appalling story of gang rape in India, which I think has triggered huge public interest and has fired people’s sense of moral outrage. In a world whose economic globalisation we celebrate day on day, we all face a challenge to take responsibility for other impacts of globalisation that are perhaps less visibly, immediately or directly seen as our responsibility. We need to take both those sides of globalisation together.
	My main point, however, is that we have a serious problem here in the UK. In recent decades, we have seen an epidemic of sexual and violent crime, the casualisation of media attitudes to sex and violence, an explosion of pornography, and in recent years casual online sexualisation and prostitution and huge problems relating to stalking and even classroom abuse, as we heard in the eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison). It is the casualness of all this that is worth highlighting. Such things are not any more considered by our media or our commentariat to be serious crimes. That, I think, is the most serious crime of all.
	We should all be shamed that London has become a global centre of human trafficking and sexual exploitation. Far from this being, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley suggested, a distraction from the serious business of Government, I suggest that it is a vital and topical issue that affects more than half of our population.

John Woodcock: I commend the hon. Gentleman for his eloquent speech, reminding us all that not every male member of the Conservative party is blinkered or bonkers on this subject. Does he share with me the hope that better health and sex education in school can help prevent the real blight of sexting? As a Member of Parliament and as a parent, I must confess that, like others, I am only just beginning to understand the gravity of that situation.

George Freeman: I agree. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which I feel personally, too, as the father of an 11-year-old daughter. I also think, however, that as a Parliament and a Government we need to be brave enough to realise that advice on sex must be put within some kind of moral framework. We need to be brave enough to acknowledge that young children require of us some guidance about what is right and wrong. Difficult territory though it is, there is no excuse for simply suggesting that there is no sense of appropriate conduct that we should be conveying.
	This is a vital and topical issue which affects more than half our population, and it is an issue of global and local significance. I believe that our generation in this great institution must address it, and that we all have a duty to take it seriously. As I said earlier, I am the father of an 11-year-old daughter, but I also speak as the husband of a wife and as the son of a mother. We are all, in one way or another, linked to this issue, and, as a compassionate Conservative, I am proud that this
	generation, and this Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, have provided such leadership on it. The Prime Minister said recently:
	“I want to see an end to violence against women and girls in all its forms. I’m proud to add my voice to all those who stand up to oppose it. Too often these horrific crimes have gone unpunished. We want this to change and that is why we have criminalised forced marriage, widened the definition of domestic violence and made stalking illegal.”
	I believe that, as a result of cross-party consensus, our generation may be able to look back on what we have achieved and be proud of it. I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on arranging the debate, which, given its significance, I should have preferred to take place on a Monday rather than a Thursday. I also congratulate the sponsors of the motion, and those who are speaking about this important topic this afternoon.

Virendra Sharma: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to contribute to this very important debate. I congratulate those who secured it, and those who have contributed to it so far. Let me also say that it is great to follow the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). This important issue is close to the heart of many Members who are present today, and I know that those who are not present support the motion.
	A recent incident in New Delhi unfortunately led to the death of a 23-year-old woman whom the people of India named “Nirbhaya Damini”, the brave-hearted daughter of India. Damini was brutally gang-raped by a group of men on a public bus. She suffered from various injuries which severely damaged both her brain and her body, and as a result of that inhumane act, she died on 29 December 2012.
	This particular act of violence has sparked much anger in India, here in the UK, and throughout the world, and it is part of the reason why I stand here to discuss the subject of violence against women and girls. Over the last few months, through vigils in my constituency and outside the Indian high commission, I have been able to witness the hundreds of people who have been brought together to share their anger against the perpetrators of such a despicable act. All of us were in Parliament square this afternoon to support those were campaigning against the violence.
	I want to focus my remarks on women and girls with an ethnic-minority background. Through my work in my constituency, I have come across many women and girls who, because of their background, require special assistance to protect them from violence, and who are much more vulnerable as victims. Women and young girls should not have to endure violence. We have a moral duty to protect our citizens, especially those who are in an especially vulnerable position. Many women suffer violence and are then unable to leave or take action against the perpetrators: they face different challenges, and feel powerless to overcome those obstacles.
	Numerous acts of violence have been inflicted on women and young girls in recent years, and such issues are now being widely addressed. However, women from an ethnic-minority background may suffer various violent acts, notably female genital mutilation, “honour-based”
	killings—of which there are more than 2,800 a year—forced marriages, domestic violence perpetrated by their husbands, in-laws and other family members, dowry-related abuse, and suicide or self-harm aggravated by harassment or violence.
	It is vital to acknowledge that in some cases, women with an ethnic-minority background suffer acts of violence that are deemed acceptable and perpetrated by a group of family members. The main concept behind those acts is the “shaming” of the women’s families or community members. It is absolutely vital to eradicate that absurd concept, which is often used by perpetrators to justify their actions.

Gavin Shuker: My hon. Friend is making a brave and impassioned speech. He seems to be hinting that there are issues involving power in the midst of these crimes and relationships.

Virendra Sharma: I shall say more about that shortly.
	The concept that acts of violence are justifiable if they will protect the family’s “honour” is ridiculous and unacceptable.
	Furthermore, many women and young girls from an ethnic minority continue to suffer because they feel that there is no way out. There is evidence that, on average, women suffer acts of violence and abuse more than 20 times before they report it, but among women from an ethnic minority the number is higher—and that, of course, assumes that the acts are ever reported. The under-reporting of such acts is another serious issue which increases the complexity of the situation in which those women find themselves.
	The funding of services for women who are victims of violence has been dramatically reduced. According to a report published by Women’s Aid, 27,900 women have been refused refuge because of a lack of vacancies, and the cutting of support for such groups will cause further problems.
	I am also concerned by the cuts that are being made in my local police force. There will no longer be front-desk police officers 24 hours a day in my local police station in Southall. Those cuts could prove life-threatening when combined with the decreased funding for other services that help women who are victims of violence.
	Let me end my speech by thanking Southall Black Sisters, who are based in my constituency. They have contributed positively to the community for more than 30 years, providing excellent services which help women from black and ethnic-minority backgrounds. Many people will know them for their work on the Kiranjit Ahluwalia case, which ultimately focused on issues that I mentioned earlier: issues which need to be resolved, and which lie deep within communities. Southall Black Sisters have provided valuable services, but, owing to their limited resources, they can only take on the most extreme cases, and there are still many more women who need assistance.
	The matters that are being discussed today are of great urgency, and I hope that the Minister will resolve to work on a global basis with other Government agencies and non-governmental organisations to eradicate the fear of violence from women throughout the world.

Mike Freer: I am pleased to note that a male Minister is responding to the debate. All too often, debates such as this are shunted off into the category of “women’s issues”, and it is left to our female colleagues to engage in them.
	Other Members, including in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), have spoken powerfully about sexualisation and normalisation. The issue of female genital mutilation was raised by my hon. Friend—my good friend—the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who I know have done extremely good work in that regard.
	There are two issues that especially concern me, and on which I press schools in my constituency. One is the use of social media for the swapping of sexual images. What worries me is that, while adults swapping sexual images of children are committing a criminal offence, when children do the same thing it seems to be regarded as a bit of a lark. I hope that the Government will think about whether the providers of social networks should bear some form of culpability. Are they not committing an offence by allowing the transmission of what is effectively child pornography?
	I have also pressed local schools on the issue of consent. Too often we think that if a woman does not say no, there is implied consent. I wrote to all my local secondary schools asking whether in personal, social, citizenship and health education—I wish someone could come up with a better name, as PSCHE is a bit of a mouthful—they teach express consent, because not saying no is not consent. I was pleased that all the schools replied saying that the point had been taken on board. Will the Minister press the Department for Education to update the curriculum on PSCHE so that express consent, not just consent, is taught?
	Those are my two points. I hope that the Minister will comment on whether the transmission of what is, in effect, child pornography can be dealt with by taking action against the network providers and whether the curriculum can be updated.

Gavin Shuker: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate, which shows the House at its best. As we make our voices count in the One Billion Rising campaign, we recognise that we cannot end violence against women and girls without also looking at wider attitudes in society. We need to consider how we, in our schools, our curriculums, our children’s services and our local authorities, are actively seeking to educate young people and safeguard them from dangerous and abusive situations. Alongside the resourcing of the immediate needs of those exposed to violence and abuse, we need to examine the widespread gender violence and attitudes to it that are so prevalent in society today.
	As technology evolves, so, too, do the means of sexual exploitation. Grooming for sexual exploitation, the increased normalisation of sexual favours and the widespread sexualisation of the young all contribute to the vulnerability of our young people. Recent cases of systematic child grooming involving violence—often sadistic violence—for the purpose of sexual exploitation,
	such as those in Rochdale and Oxford, highlight just how necessary it is to equip our young people with the knowledge and resources to prevent such horrendous situations from recurring in other areas and ways.
	Such cases are, in a sense, the high-profile, visible manifestations of this culture. Many young and vulnerable teenage girls, in particular, are targeted, groomed and abused in this way by such offenders and by their peers. Young people need to understand that they cannot “consent” to their own abuse and their own exploitation, and that they cannot do so must be reflected consistently by law enforcement agencies, support services and education services.

Virendra Sharma: Does my hon. Friend agree that these things are happening because there has been a huge reduction in the resources going to the agencies that protect these young kids?

Gavin Shuker: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I do believe there is an issue of resources to address. It is also important to acknowledge that successive Governments have perhaps not sought to invest enough in these services, particularly in the kinds of hub and spoke models that would allow us to get into the community to engage with the people who are most vulnerable to sexual exploitation and violence. I believe that our educational bodies have a responsibility to teach and model respectful and healthy relationships for all young people.

Seema Malhotra: My hon. Friend is making a key point about the importance of education. Statistics suggest that 750,000 children are witnessing domestic violence each year, so does he agree that it is increasingly important that our schools play a role in ensuring that children are able to understand that what they are seeing and experiencing is not normal?

Gavin Shuker: My hon. Friend is knowledgeable and accurate on this point. We understand that the models we grow up with affect how we engage with the wider world. One of my particular concerns is to ensure that young people who are subjected to seeing this kind of abuse in their own circumstances do not go on to perpetuate that violence in later life.
	We know that this education needs to be of high quality; to have age-appropriate content; to enable people to make informed choices; and to highlight potentially dangerous patterns of relationships or environments. It is needed across the board; it must not simply be targeted at a group we would deem vulnerable. I appreciate the views of Members across this House who feel, just as I do, that sex is a spiritual as well as emotional and physical act. There are those who, like me, believe that deep moral and ethical questions are related to issues such as the scale of abortion in this country, but to deny young people the education and the capacity to prevent themselves from finding themselves in that situation in the first place is a perverse outcome of that belief.
	Education targeting the prevention of violence against women and girls is not just an issue for women and girls, so there is a need to educate both young boys and young girls about mutual respect within relationships, recognising that men and young boys can also be victims of violence and abuse. Educating both boys and girls is a key
	element in a preventive education. Alongside statutory sex and relationship advice, resources should be made available in schools so that support can be accessed by young people experiencing or concerned about violence and abuse. I have real concerns about the resources available to engage those at high risk of becoming victims of sexual exploitation.
	We do not just need to take action in schools and education authorities. In my role as chair of the all-party group on prostitution and the global sex trade, I have been struck by the measures taken by some good local authorities to introduce strategies to tackle violence against women and girls in their own communities. Introducing measures to tackle domestic violence, sexual violence, prostitution and female genital mutilation under a comprehensive strategy, with direct support and enforcement of the law, is a real step towards the goal of a zero-tolerance approach to violence against women and girls. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s view on whether other local authorities should also adopt such strategies to work across their own communities. If such strategies were replicated nationally across local authorities and prioritised as a matter of urgency, that could go a long way towards ensuring that vulnerable people do not fall through the cracks.
	In finishing, I wish to make a few brief remarks about one of the groups at greatest risk of violence against women and girls. The alarming statistics on adults involved in prostitution who were sexually abused as children, experienced domestic violence or entered prostitution before the age of 18—the age at which they could consent—highlight the urgent need for preventive education and support services for young people at risk. According to Home Office figures, 70% of those involved in street prostitution had a history of local authority care, and nearly half report a history of childhood sexual exploitation. Highlighting issues of vulnerability and the consent of children sheds light on the continued vulnerability of women into adulthood. The legislation on commercial sexual services currently sends no clear signals about the nature of this trade—these are signals to be picked up by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. Perhaps a debate such as today’s is an important time to assess the impact that these industries have, not only on those directly providing these services or being exploited, but on our society’s attitudes towards women and girls.
	In our group’s call for evidence for our inquiry into the law on prostitution, I have been struck by the fact that much of the language from those who purchase sex completely fails to challenge, and in some places continues to perpetrate, the idea that access to sex is a man’s right. In normalising and legitimising occupations in this way, we not only maintain the prevalence of an industry that will be sustained by future generations, but we communicate attitudes accepting and promoting the commoditisation of women. It is notable, for example, that violence against women involved in prostitution is part of one of the most popular video games in this country. Inherent in this attitude is the idea of the entitlement of men to pursue sexual pleasure, no matter what the cost. That attitude continues to reinforce the power imbalance at play behind many of the issues we have heard about today. We need to assess how widespread the acceptance of such—

George Freeman: rose—

Gavin Shuker: I will give way.

Nigel Evans: Order. I am terribly sorry, but you have taken two interventions already.

Gavin Shuker: I thought that was the case.

Mr Deputy Speaker: It was. I call Diana Johnson.

Diana Johnson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee on allocating time for it. I also pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in promoting and getting behind the One Billion Rising campaign.
	Many Members on both sides of the House have spoken with passion about the importance of ending violence against women. In my constituency, we have a wonderful football team, Hull City, with a wonderful football ground, the KC stadium, which holds some 25,000 people, and as a new MP I was told that the stadium would be filled to capacity by all the victims of domestic violence in the city. That statistic is a stark reminder of the prevalence of domestic violence in all our constituencies.
	When I spoke to the police in Hull last week they told me that domestic violence was still one of their key priorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) spoke about the very positive Strength to Change campaign, which was funded by the PCT. It worked with more than 250 perpetrators to try and change behaviour, but those men had already engaged in domestic violence. I think we all agree that it is much better to prevent it from ever happening by getting in early and ensuring that our young men and women understand what is acceptable in relationships and that violence is never acceptable.
	The education we give to our young people in schools is limited, as we have heard. It falls within the science curriculum and talks about the biology of reproduction and sexual diseases, but does not in any way address the issues that young people say they want to know about. Young people want to know what a healthy relationship should look like. We need to consider the self-esteem that our young girls, in particular, should be developing and the confidence they need to make good choices. We know from examples around the world that good sex and relationship education in schools delays the time at which youngsters start having sex and most Members of this House would think that that is a jolly good thing.
	We must also remember that parents can still withdraw their children from sex education up to the age of 19. Nobody can accept that that is a realistic way of proceeding. We need to ensure that the law reflects what is going on in our country. We know that PSHE is taught with success in some schools and not in others and youngsters tell us that we must get that sorted out for their sake.
	I respect the Minister for Immigration, who is on the Front Bench, but I am disappointed that the Home Secretary is not sitting there today. I understand that she chairs the inter-ministerial group on violence against
	women and girls, on which the Home Office takes a lead. She has spoken out against violence against women and girls on many occasions and I have great respect for her, too, but it would have sent a clear message that the Government were getting behind the motion had she been in the Chamber today.
	Let me focus on the motion, which is about making PSHE a statutory requirement in our schools. The review undertaken by the new Government when they came into power ended in November 2011. We must remember that the previous Labour Government attempted to make sex and relationship education statutory in 2010, but that opportunity was unfortunately blocked in the “wash-up” by the Conservative party. The review finished in November 2011, as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough said, and since then I have been chasing the Department for Education. I have tabled many parliamentary questions and asked whether Ministers are meeting groups and organisations to ensure that they get their approach absolutely right, but it seems that very little has happened.

Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend spoke about who she thought should be on the Front Bench. Is she as disappointed as I am that there are no Education Ministers sitting there?

Diana Johnson: Yes. One Education Minister was in the Chamber earlier, but unfortunately did not stay to hear the rest of the debate. The Department for Education is the villain in the piece today, because there is general acceptance across the House that although making PSHE statutory is not the whole answer, it is part of the jigsaw. It fits in with what the Government are saying and the steps they have taken since they came to power, as well as those taken by the Labour Government, to try to address violence against women and to equip our youngsters with the skills and knowledge they need to make good choices about the lives they lead. I am disappointed that no representative of the Department is in the Chamber to listen to the debate.
	I was a little flabbergasted when I heard that the Department for Education had accepted that financial education should be statutory. If the Department knows that that is important and wants to give young people the skills and experience to deal with their finances, it seems rather ironic that it does not accept that young people also need the skills, experience and knowledge to deal with relationships and sexual matters. The Department argues that it does not want to prescribe what schools have to do, but it seems to me that if the Department can be prescriptive about financial education it could be a bit more prescriptive about sex and relationship education.
	The Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), answered Equality questions earlier today but said nothing about the very effective campaign to reduce teen relationship abuse, which is working directly with young people. It is not being used by the Department for Education—I checked its Twitter account and it is not promoting that campaign. I think the Department for Education should stop turning its face away from what the vast majority of young people, parents and Members of this House want, which is for high-quality statutory sex and relationship education to be brought in as soon as possible with properly trained teachers and proper resources. That will not solve the whole problem, but it will help.

Caroline Lucas: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and I pay tribute to the leadership shown on this subject by the hon. Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). We have heard compelling speeches from Members on both sides of the House and I was particularly struck by those from the hon. Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). Notwithstanding that, I share the disappointment that has been expressed about the lack of vigour from those who sit on the Government Front Bench, in particular. When I asked the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), this morning about the importance of statutory education in PSHE and violence against women and girls, I was told that it is voluntary and that schools can offer it if they want to. Everything we have heard in the debate this afternoon suggests that that is not enough.

Helen Goodman: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is a problem that PSHE is not part of the curriculum in academies and free schools? As we have all agreed during the debate, the problem goes across society.

Caroline Lucas: I agree. I also agree with those who said we need a whole-school approach. Yes, PSHE is vital but such education should also be mainstreamed across all other parts of the education system.
	The figures, tragically, are all too familiar. In Britain, 60,000 women are raped every year and two women a week are killed by a partner or ex-partner. That culture of violence is doing enormous damage to our young people. As the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) said, NSPCC research found that so-called sexting is linked to coercive behaviour, bullying and violence and has a disproportionate impact on girls. A YouGov poll for the End Violence Against Women Coalition found that more than 70% of 16 to 18-year-old boys and girls said that they heard sexual name calling towards girls routinely and, even more disturbingly, one in three girls said that they experienced groping or other unwanted sexual touching at school.
	In a report published last year entitled “I thought I was the only one,” the office of the Children’s Commissioner found that in the space of just 12 months more than 16,000 children, mostly girls, were identified as being at risk of sexual exploitation. The report highlights that we need to ask why so many males, both young and old, think it is acceptable to treat both girls and boys as objects to be used and abused. That brings me to my key point: violence does not happen in a vacuum. We must recognise the impact of the wider culture, so I want to focus on just one aspect of that—the objectification of women in the media, whether it is in the newspapers, music videos, adverts and video games.
	Women have been served up as sex objects in some of our daily newspapers for many years. They show images that would be prohibited on television or subject to the watershed, yet they are sold entirely without age restriction in shops, often at a child’s eye level. As the mother of two sons, there are shops I would prefer not to go into because of the eye-level material that they will see and have seen and because of the effect on them.
	Every week we read in the papers cases of women who are killed by their partner or former partner. Every one of these cases should cause an outcry, but rarely warrants a paragraph because it is tragically becoming so routine. The problem was highlighted last year by women’s groups who gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry and later published a report called “Just the Women”. This examined how domestic homicide cases are reported as “tragic” one-off incidents, rather than as part of a well-understood pattern of behaviour. Rape cases in some papers are routinely placed next to pictures of half-naked women. Cases of forced marriage or so-called honour-based violence, a horrible misnomer, are explained in terms of culture or religion—anything but violence against women and girls. Lord Leveson himself suggested that a front-page report in The Sun headed “Bodyguards for battered Towie sisters” about violence against two women from “The Only Way is Essex”, which was accompanied by a picture of one of the women in an erotic pose in lingerie, may well infringe cause 12—the discrimination clause—of the editors code of practice.
	No one is suggesting that the media are solely to blame for these attitudes, but their objectification of women and the treatment by some newspapers, for example, of rape cases go some considerable way towards explaining why prejudicial attitudes to women are so deeply entrenched and are so normalised. The chief Crown prosecutor for London, Alison Saunders, has expressed concern about the impact that the treatment of women in the media has on rape cases and jurors’ decision making. She believes that jurors are coming to court with preconceptions about women that affect the way they consider evidence and she says:
	“If a girl goes out and gets drunk and falls over . . . they are almost demonised in the media, and if they then become a victim, you can see how juries would bring their preconceptions to bear.”
	Fortunately, much needed work is being done with detectives and prosecutors, for example, to dispel myths and stereotypes about women who have been raped or subjected to sexual and others forms of violence, but Alison Saunders asks whether there is
	“something more we should be doing”
	so that people doing jury service are not being challenged for the first time, and the subject is not one that they are thinking about for the first time.
	The answer to that question is, of course, yes. That is why our schools should be taking a lead. Work to prevent violence against women and girls must be an integral part of education policy, delivered in every school as part of the statutory curriculum. It is astonishing that in 2010 40% of 16 to 18-year-olds said either that they did not receive lessons or information on sexual consent, or that they did not know whether they did. Although PSHE education must now teach about consent, it needs to go further and cover all forms of violence against women, including teenage relationship abuse, forced marriage, FGM and sexual exploitation. It should also be linked to work on gender equality and challenging gender stereotypes; otherwise young women and men will never be exposed to education designed to reduce gender violence and to counter the damaging impact of cultural factors, such as the media.
	The 1 billion women rising today want a world that empowers young people, rather than represses their sexuality, so work in our schools must allow young
	people to be more in control of their sexual identity, rather than being dictated to by the media or advertising. Crucially, it must address harmful notions of masculinity and present boys with positive alternatives. The Director of Public Prosecutions and the Deputy Children’s Commissioner have both spoken out about the impact of pornography on young men’s sexually aggressive behaviour, and there is evidence of the negative impact of porn on young men’s attitudes to women.
	In my constituency, the domestic abuse charity Rise is an excellent example of existing good practice. It delivers a PSHE preventive education programme on healthy relationships to schools across the city. Our schools also subscribe to the whole-school approach recommended by the End Violence Against Women coalition, where heads take a lead, teachers are trained on the issues, and all students receive comprehensive sex and relationship education which deals with consent, equality and respect. If we are serious about preventing gender violence, those messages need to be reflected not just in our schools but across society as a whole.

Julie Hilling: Two women are killed every week in the UK—109 women last year. Worldwide acts of violence against women and girls aged 15 to 44 cause more deaths and disability than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents and war combined. More than 53% of children aged five to 18 in India have been sexually abused, and 57% of Australian women reported experiencing violence in their lifetime. In 2010-11 728,145 incidents of domestic violence were recorded by our police, but only 8% of those cases ended successfully in prosecution. Some 45% of women in the UK have experienced violence.
	It is no wonder that 1 billion women are rising today. As Kathy Lette said at the rally in Parliament square earlier today, “Women are always runners-up in the human race.” The statistics are shocking and possibly challengeable, but it is not enough to be horrified. We have to do something. A study by Professor David Gadd, “From Boys to Men”, found that among year 9 pupils, 48.4% of boys and 33.3% of girls thought it was all right to hit their partners in certain circumstances. The Girl Guides attitude survey found that 39% of girls and 43% of boys thought it was all right “to make you tell your boyfriend where you are all the time”; 21% of girls and 39% of boys thought it was all right for a boy to tell his girlfriend what she can and cannot wear; and 2% of girls and 11% of boys thought it was all right to hit or kick somebody if they spoke to someone else at a party.
	When young people believe that violence in a relationship is okay, we have a long, long way to go, because domestic violence is not about uncontrolled emotions. It is about power and control of one’s partner. It is about how women are viewed in society. Think back to those traditional marriage vows, which start with
	“Who gives this woman to this man”
	and end with women promising to obey. The vows may have been updated, but in so many cases attitudes have not.
	If we want to change attitudes, we need good sex and relationships education in schools. We need girls and boys to be confident in themselves and to have good
	self-esteem. We especially need girls to be assertive and not to accept that they have to do what they are told to do by their partner. Just think about where young people currently get much of their education about sex and relationships. Some may come from parents, but much more will come from peers and pornography. When I worked with young people, I was horrified by the publications they were reading and the films they were watching.
	Porn does not talk about loving relationships or about young people waiting until they are ready to have sex. It does not talk about safe sex. It talks about taking women, about domination, about rough sex, about women as sexual objects to be used. I was deeply shocked when one young woman told me about being with a group of girls and boys in the bedroom of one of the boys. This boy was masturbating while looking at pornography in full view of the group. This was deemed to be appropriate behaviour, nothing unusual, perfectly normal.
	I have worked with many victims of domestic violence over the years, including colleagues. Domestic violence robs the victim of confidence and self-esteem. Victims are told that it is their fault—if only they were a better girlfriend, wife, mother, lover, worker, cook, cleaner, this would not be happening to them. The reality is that whatever they did, however they behaved, the violence would still happen, because in the end that partner becomes the whipping boy, the outlet for frustration and anger—but, of course, “I only do it because I love you, dear.”
	I believe sex and relationships education is essential in talking about good relationships, positive relationships, equal relationships. It is essential in building assertiveness in girls so that they do not accept that they should be hit and controlled. An Irish study showed that 12% of year 11 and 12 pupils think that boyfriends who hit girlfriends deserve a second chance. For me, that decision to stay, that excuse that “he only did it because he was stressed/upset/I was bad/he’ll never do it again” is far too often the start of a journey into long-term domestic abuse.
	Such abuse is not only, and may not even be, violent, but it is psychological. It is controlling, threatening and bullying. The normal journey is one where the woman becomes more and more isolated because the perpetrator makes it impossible for the victim to maintain relationships with family and friends. Her self-confidence is stripped away and she can no longer see a way out. The fear of the perpetrator does not disappear if she manages to walk out. That is why refuges do not publish addresses and why women often have to move many miles away from their previous home and from any remaining support network.
	Relationships are fundamental to our society, but too often they are not built on equality or mutual trust and respect. The very least we can do in a civilised society is give young people information and skills, and hopefully values, so that they can build positive and equal relationships.

Iain McKenzie: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this important debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member
	for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on leading it so eloquently. I want to focus my contribution on violence against women in the home, because I have been talking for some time with the Women’s Aid project in my constituency. It tells me that domestic violence against women in our communities is still for the most part hidden and not really openly spoken about, even by the women subjected to it. Why is that? We have heard a mixture of reasons today, not least of which are the fear of talking openly about it, the shame victims feel and their belief that they somehow brought the violence upon themselves, which is not the case. The real shame is that society still allows it to happen. In my part of the country, Scotland, a domestic violence incident is recorded every 10 minutes. Just imagine how many that is over the course of this debate.
	No one deserves to be abused. No one should have to put up with abuse anywhere, let alone in their own homes. Domestic abuse can affect any women, regardless of class, race or age. There is no typical abuser either, but 82% of domestic violence incidents involve men attacking women—women they profess to love. Two or three women a week are even killed by former or current partners.
	Many victims are not being attacked for the first time. In 2011-12, more than 33,000 of recorded incidents involved victims who had already experienced domestic abuse. The previous year the figure stood at just over 28,000. It can be a continuous cycle of violence, with women and children forced to flee their homes to seek sanctuary—many of us have difficulty understanding this —only to return to the abusive partner. Why? Again, the reasons are many: desire to try to maintain a resemblance of family life; they might have nowhere else to go; and even because, “Yes, I still love him.”
	Domestic abuse causes serious and long-lasting harm. Apart from physical injury, it frequently causes psychological damage, and abused women can also lose their jobs and homes. It also affects the children who witness it. It undermines their relationship with their mother, disrupts their education and can even turn some into abusers themselves in later life. We have to stop this vicious cycle. Education in schools of zero tolerance is absolutely essential.
	As I said, I have visited and spoken with those involved with the Women’s Aid project in Inverclyde. They believe that the causes of domestic abuse go back historically to the days when—believe it or not—a man was legally allowed to beat his wife. In Scotland, the problem can more usually be traced back to alcohol. For some, alcohol is the elixir that releases held-back pressure and frustration, allowing their rage to turn violent and leading them to lash out at those nearest and dearest. I always think that it is no coincidence that it took a Scotsman to write “Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde”, in which a potion released his darker and violent side.
	Domestic violence corrodes and damages our communities and our society. The extent of the problem is shocking. A recent study revealed at the Scottish Women’s Aid conference in Edinburgh showed that domestic violence in Scotland has risen by 66% over the past 10 years. There is always a motivation behind the violence, whether it is physical or emotional: it is a way of maintaining control through fear. The woman becomes isolated from her family and friends. Many victims of domestic abuse blame themselves for the abuse, as I have
	said. Over time, domestic abuse creates an emotional and psychological state that is unique among crimes, similar to the fear endured by survivors of violent atrocities. I know that the police in Scotland have vowed to crack down on this crime and to make it easier for victims to raise the alarm, which I welcome.

Virendra Sharma: The police have a major role to play in tackling domestic violence. We have the example of Gwent police force, which has established a dedicated domestic abuse and safeguarding unit, which appears to have had very positive results. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should replicate that on a national scale so that communities can be reassured and can receive specialised support services for the most marginalised and vulnerable?

Iain McKenzie: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. He must have been looking over my shoulder at my notes, because I was about to move on to that subject. My local police force is now setting up remote stations to allow victims to report crimes without having to go to a police station.
	We must go into schools and teach our young people that domestic abuse, be it physical, mental or sexual, is totally unacceptable. We must protect our future generations of women from this violence. All the agencies involved in tackling violence against women should be working together more effectively to eradicate it. There should always be zero tolerance for violence against women. We must be unremitting in our pursuit of those who carry out such crimes and in our support for those who suffer as a result. No woman should be subjected to violence, and certainly not in her own home. I applaud and support the work of the Women’s Aid project in my constituency.

Helen Goodman: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on initiating it and on the work that she has done in this field.
	The Government estimate that last year 85,000 women were raped or sexually assaulted. That is a shocking statistic. Clearly, this violence takes place in a cultural context. I want to build on the remarks of the hon. Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), for Devizes (Claire Perry) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) to suggest some concrete things that we might do to shift this culture which is portraying women in such a highly sexualised way.
	During my adult life, women have made lots of progress in many respects. We have made progress at work, in education and public services, and in pensions and child care, but we seem to have gone backwards in the public portrayal of women and the impact that that is having on our self-esteem and on the way that men treat us. The all-party group on body image has looked into women’s attitudes to their bodies. That can appear to be at the soft and fluffy end of the scale, but it often drives into women’s sense of themselves and levels of self-esteem. People who have negative self-images can
	become extremely depressed and subject to mental health problems and eating disorders—so much so that 80% of women are unhappy with their bodies, 40% of children are concerned about their bodies, and 1.6 million people have eating disorders. People’s anxieties are strengthened by their being faced with a constant bombardment of images of perfection.
	I thought it would be interesting to talk to two groups of young people about these issues. I went to a school in London to talk to a group of girls in year 10 and to a school in my constituency in County Durham to talk to a mixed group of boys and girls, also in year 10. They agreed that these were significant problems. The girls, in particular, drew a connection between the images portrayed in the media and the way they are harassed on the streets by complete strangers. They have now begun to airbrush their own photographs on Facebook—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Slough is groaning; I was appalled as well. There are some practical things that we can do about this. It is impossible to ban airbrushed photographs in advertisements, but we could label them as such.
	The young people told me that they find such discussions valuable. As I said, they saw a clear link between sexualised imagery in the media and how they were treated in real life. The portrayal of such images should be covered in the PSHE curriculum. The Girl Guides have produced a fantastic pack about these issues. Another important aspect is that this is reducing trust between the genders. That is not a good thing, because obviously we want people to have happy, fulfilling long-term relationships, and they will not do that if they feel anxious and insecure.
	The thing that most worried them was music videos that glamorise violence. They were particularly scathing of Eminem and of Rihanna’s video, “Love the way you lie”, which is about a woman who is apparently in love with an aggressive man. The girls were particularly alarmed by that.
	We need to take some positive action, so I suggest that the Government consult urgently on introducing age-rating for music videos, which was one of the Bailey review’s proposals; that Ofcom look again at its rules for radio stations to keep sexually explicit and inappropriate lyrics to particular times of the day; and that we reduce the amount of on-street advertising containing sexualised imagery in locations where children are likely to see it.
	A further problem that has been brought to my attention by ATVOD—the Authority for Television on Demand—is that R18 material is available on on-demand online sites that are not out of the reach of children. A survey of mine on The Huffington Post website is gathering people’s views on these issues, so Members should visit it if they would like to take part.
	I know that the Minister will not be able to commit to my suggestions this afternoon, but we need seriously to take some concrete steps and move the policy on.

Stella Creasy: Today we are seeing what is being called a “feminist tsunami” around the world. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) looks a bit worried; I think he should be, judging by the tone of some of his remarks. There are 160 events across the UK alone, and 203 countries
	around the world are joining in to say, “Enough. It is time. One Billion Rising.” Whether here in the UK in Sheffield, Liverpool, Ipswich, Corby, Bute, Norwich, Manchester or Kirklees, or whether in Manila, South Africa, San Francisco, Tel Aviv, the Lebanon or Afghanistan, women and men are coming together to say that they do not want to live in a world where one in three women will be raped or beaten in their lifetime. They are turning those billion women who would be assaulted into a billion people calling for change.
	The question for us today is whether the British Parliament has done justice to that call. Having listened to the debate, I think we have. A fantastic range of contributions have reflected the number of issues that affect women’s safety in British society and, indeed, internationally. I briefly want to reference some of them.
	Many Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) and for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), have discussed the prevalence of domestic violence in our society and how we can tackle it. The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) made a fantastic and personal contribution about how we might deal with that. Others have highlighted the issues in some of our minority communities, addressing in particular the idea that this is a cultural issue when gender violence is gender violence. In that sense, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) and my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and for Luton South (Gavin Shuker).
	We have also discussed the need to express international solidarity. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) talked strongly not only about forced marriage, but about how we need to tackle such issues across the world, as did the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who both spoke out for Jyoti Singh. Let us say her name and that we in the British Parliament stand on her side.
	We have also heard many examples of how we could improve the way in which our criminal justice system works. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) mentioned Lindsay Anderson and the tragic case of Frances Andrade. I put on record my personal support for the work that the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), has done in challenging and calling for a change to how we deal with victims of sexual violence in our court system.
	The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) talked about his fantastic work on stalking. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) highlighted what the child protection system could do and the problems with the probation service’s lack of awareness of sexual violence among young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) gave the sobering statistic that one in five calls to our police is to report domestic violence. Something has to change in British society.
	We have also covered broader cultural issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) spoke about the impact of body image. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) talked about the objectification of women in society. I will extend the hand of co-operation across the House
	to the hon. Member for Totnes if she wants to run the “No more page 3 in the Tea Room” campaign. She is absolutely right.
	The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who unfortunately is not here, made a fantastic point this morning when she told the police that when so many women from the UK Parliament are standing up to say that they want change, they should not move them on. She has been a fantastic champion of tackling the changes that are allowed by online technology.
	All of the points that have been raised are examples of a broader issue that we need to deal with. The fundamental problem is not technology or the practice of female genital mutilation; it is that we live in a society that is unequal. That impacts on the safety of women in our society. Even if the internet did not exist, women would still face the same scale of violence. That will continue unless we tackle the root cause of inequality, unless we tackle those attitudes and unless we take the stand that we are taking today every day to say that something has to change.
	That is what the motion speaks to. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who has been a fantastic champion for this issue with the Backbench Business Committee. I also pay tribute to Members across the House who have supported the motion, including the hon. Members for Erewash (Jessica Lee) and for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), who cannot be here. I want to say why the Opposition think that the motion matters. We want to help the Minister if he is brave enough to listen to the arguments that have been made today about why compulsory sex and relationship education for both boys and girls is intrinsic to changing the culture in which we see violence against women in our communities.
	Many Members have talked about the impact that is made by high-quality sex and relationship education. I accept the point that was made by the hon. Member for Battersea. The Brook advisory service has demonstrated the impact of poor-quality teaching. That is an argument for the use of expert guidance within schools rather than for having no guidance at all. I commend the work of Women’s Aid in that regard.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North put her finger on it succinctly when she said that the Department for Education was the villain of the piece. I agree with her. As somebody who has campaigned for financial education be a key part of tackling debt within our society, I do not understand why we can teach our children about compound interest but not about consent. That must be a critical part of the process.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) talked about the importance of youth work. She is right that we must deal with this issue not only in schools, but throughout our culture.
	The hon. Members for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) and for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) made well-meant contributions in which they seemed suggest that this was a debate for women. Let me tell them very clearly that it is not the responsibility of women to avoid violence; it is the responsibility of society to stamp it out. We welcome them here to take part in the debate not because they care about women, but because it is for everyone in society to tackle these issues and to say that violence against women must not happen any
	more. With that in mind, I hope that they will help us to challenge those who suggest that this issue is about what women wear. I urge the Foreign Secretary, as he is in his place, to look again at the advice on the Foreign Office website and to consider what message it sends out about rape in our world.
	It is not acceptable to offer a caution as a penalty for rape in our society. We have to tackle the way in which we deal with rape. When only one in 30 rape victims in our society sees justice, it is an argument not for cautions, but for changing the criminal justice system. [Interruption.] That was actually the suggestion of the Secretary of State for Justice, so I hope that the Government Members who are heckling will take it up with him.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Slough, for Kingston upon Hull North and for Bolton West and the hon. Member for Battersea have spoken about the importance of sex and relationship education. We know that children will get their advice from somewhere. We know that they will go to Google if they do not go to a quality-assured source. We know what impact that has not only on their sexual behaviour, but on how they deal with relationships and whether they have respectful relationships. I am mindful of the comments of the hon. Member for Luton South about the importance of respect in relationships.
	That is why we cannot avoid this question any more. That is why we must challenge those who are trying to stop us. That is why I challenge the Secretary of State for Education when he suggests that all we need to do is to raise educational attainment, as though sexual violence is not happening in the highest performing schools in our country. Let me tell Government Members that we know that sexting takes place in the poshest and most expensive boarding schools that children can go to. So this is not about—[Interruption.]Members are barracking me, but the Secretary of State told the Education Committee that one of the best ways to get children not to indulge in risky behaviours was to educate them so well that they had hope in the future. He seemed to be suggesting that it was about improving standards in schools—we all agree with that—but not about taking on the cultural aspects of what sexual behaviour people think is acceptable.
	I actually agree with the Prime Minister on the issue. He said that
	“I believe that sex education, when taught properly, is extremely important. It should not be values-free. That must mean teaching young people about consent: that ‘no’ means ‘no’. At the moment, this is not even compulsory in the sex education curriculum. This has to change – and it will change with a Conservative government. This will be an important step towards encouraging greater responsibility and helping tackle one of the root causes of rape and sexual violence.”
	The Prime Minister said that to the Conservative Women’s Organisation in 2007. We all know that in 2010, Labour’s efforts to change the situation were a victim of the wash-up, and that the other coalition partners supported putting compulsory sex and relationship education on the curriculum. Since then, there has been a vote about academies, and the Government voted against the motion.
	Today, we have heard the support in the country for sex and relationship education in schools through the One Billion Rising Campaign, including from Government Members, and particularly the concern that if 50% of our schools become academies, they will be able to
	avoid sex and relationship education altogether. I hope that there will therefore be cross-party consensus that the situation has to change, and cross-party support for the Minister if he chooses to say here and now that he will take on the Ministers from the Department for Education who could not even be bothered to come here today to talk about the issue and are not willing to support it.
	That is key to tackling the root causes of these problems—we need to say that it is enough. It is time. We must not let those people get in the way of changing attitudes. One Billion Rising is because one is too many. The hon. Member for Battersea talked about solidarity and standing together. Let us stand up to the people in the Government who still do not take that line. I say to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister that to tweet about One Billion Rising is fantastic and sends a message, but we will hold them to account every single day if these issues are still not resolved.
	I ask Members to vote for the motion, to give Home Office Ministers the clear support that they need. I ask Members to give the Home Office the evidence it needs to show that the situation has to change, so that Ministers can go to the Department for Education and say that they want to see sex and relationship education on the curriculum. Anyone who heard Jahmene Douglas talking today about the impact that it had on his sister and his family, and who saw such a brave young man come forward, will know that we cannot leave it to chance that schools will provide it. We have to ensure that it is a standard across British society.
	I hope that Government Members will put their money where their mouth is, vote for the motion and support us in this effort. I hope we will say that One Billion Rising is not just for one day but is the start of something different in British society.

Mark Harper: I congratulate the Members who bid for the debate at the Backbench Business Committee. It was an excellent idea, and well done to the Committee for setting aside the time for this debate and the one to follow, which is on the same theme of sexual violence. The House will shortly be able to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood).
	I thought that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) rather spoiled the debate, frankly. It had been a good debate, and I had listened to powerful speeches from both sides of the House, including from Members on the Labour Benches and other Opposition Benches, but her tone at the end rather soured an excellent debate.
	I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) finds my presence disappointing. I fear that may be the case for Opposition Members. I thought, though, that both she and the hon. Member for Walthamstow were rather churlish about the Department for Education. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), found the time to come and listen to part of the debate, and he and I have spoken about these issues previously, including earlier this week. Some Opposition Members cling to the idea that there is somehow a divide in the Government, but it is a false idea.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North said that the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), had not mentioned the teenage relationship abuse campaign when he answered a question in Women and Equalities questions. I may be wrong, but I listened carefully and the Minister not only referenced that campaign, but made the point that the Government are relaunching it today and are committed to continuing it because it has been so effective. On the basis that things said in the House of Commons are often the greatest secrets in the world, I will say it again: the teenage relationship abuse campaign “This is abuse” will be relaunched today with a focus on what constitutes controlling and coercive behaviour, and on raising awareness among teenagers of what constitutes abuse and violence. I have seen that campaign and think it rather effective. Evidence also suggests it is effective, and I am pleased the Government are relaunching it.

Diana Johnson: My point—I am sorry if I did not make it clear—is that the information was not on the Department of Education Twitter feed, which is obviously a place that young people might look to see what the Department is saying about these good initiatives.

Mark Harper: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, if a Minister speaks in the House of Commons, I as a Member of Parliament happen to put greater weight on that than on what—with greatest respect to the Foreign Secretary, who uses Twitter in an excellent manner—goes on the Twitter feed. If the Minister says something at the Dispatch Box as a statement of Government policy, that is important. The fact that the announcement was made in the House of Commons proves the saying that things said here remain great secrets.
	In the limited time available, let me pick up a number of issues raised by Members across the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who is not in her place at the moment, raised two issues that were taken up by others. She referred to the pilot scheme for domestic violence protection orders run by her constabulary in Wiltshire, and I am pleased to say that three pilot forces continue to operate those protection orders. The Government were asked to extend those powers, and we have done so. An evaluation of those pilots will be published this summer, and a decision will be taken about whether to roll the scheme out. The good news is that the pilots will continue in those areas.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned sexting. That issue was taken up by a number of hon. Members, some of whom described concerning examples that either they or others had heard about. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre produces resources for teachers to use in the classroom, and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) gave a graphic example not just of sexting but of sexual offences taking place in the classroom, suggesting a more serious problem in some areas than sexting itself.
	The hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) referenced the St Mary’s sexual assault referral centre near her constituency, which is jointly funded by her local police force, the national health service and local authorities. Responsibility for those assault centres will remain with the NHS Commissioning Board, working with local partners to fund them. That partnership approach works well.
	The hon. Lady also chairs the all-party group for runaway and missing children and adults and I pay tribute to her for that. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, who was present in the debate, said that he spoke with her yesterday at a conference on child sexual exploitation. That demonstrates that the Department for Education is alive to a number of these important issues.
	The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) demonstrated—as did much of the debate—that concern about this issue is shared by hon. Members across the House. We have had a good constructive debate and heard some excellent ideas. She, like the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), raised this issue’s international dimension and mentioned recent events that have pushed it up the agenda, not only in the United Kingdom but elsewhere. The hon. Lady and others mentioned the impact of human trafficking. That is an issue I take very seriously as chair of the inter-departmental ministerial group on human trafficking, and I have engaged on the issue with the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who so ably opened this debate. Together with fellow officers of that group, she will hold my feet to the fire as the Government make progress on that agenda.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) mentioned forced marriage, and I am pleased that the Prime Minister and the Government have committed to taking steps to criminalise that. The issue was raised by the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, and the Government have made their position clear. We have led the world in tackling that practice. We will criminalise it and make a breach of a forced marriage protection order a criminal offence. It is not enough just to change the law; we need to change people’s attitudes and engage with communities to change people’s views. That point was made by the hon. Member for Slough and the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall.
	My hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire and for Battersea (Jane Ellison), and hon. Members on both sides of the House, mentioned female genital mutilation. The Government have taken the lead on that. The Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, who has responsibility for crime prevention, has made it clear that FGM should be seen for what it is: child abuse. It is not acceptable. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) mentioned the importance of securing prosecutions. The Crown Prosecution Service wants to lead on that with its action plan on improving prosecutions. The Home Office will continue to work with the Director of Public Prosecutions to identify the barriers to successful prosecutions.
	The declaration against FGM, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, sets out the law and potential criminal penalties. It is supported across the Government and has been signed on behalf of their Departments by the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, who has responsibility for crime prevention; the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who has responsibility for public health; and by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for
	Crewe and Nantwich, who has responsibility for children and families. There is good evidence that Ministers from a number of Departments are focused on a range of issues and on delivering progress. The characterisation of the Department for Education is therefore unfair.
	The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd)—I hope he will forgive me for mangling the pronunciation of his constituency—mentioned the stalking offences that he worked on with the Government, which came into effect last November. Police and prosecutors have been given special guidance and training on the offences, and I hope they make an impact on dealing with that incredibly serious offence, which was previously not dealt with well in the criminal justice system.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mark Harper: I will give way just once—to the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne).

Sandra Osborne: Is the Minister aware of the recent cross-party inquiry by the hon. Members for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) and for Solihull (Lorely Burt) and me on unwanted pregnancy? We called for statutory provision for sex and relationship education. Will the Minister comment on that—it is relevant to the debate—before he takes his seat?

Virendra Sharma: rose—

Mark Harper: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will answer that intervention. I was not aware of the inquiry on which the hon. Lady worked, but I am now.
	Let me come back to sex and relationship education, if I may. Sex education is a statutory responsibility. I listened very carefully to the points made in the debate. Interestingly, many Members said that sex and relationship teaching as a component of PSHE is in many cases not high quality. It is important to focus not just on teaching sex and relationship education. Schools must have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance, but it is important that it is well taught. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—

Yvette Cooper: rose—

Mark Harper: If the shadow Home Secretary lets me finish my point, I will give way to her.
	The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion referred to a charity in her constituency: Rise, which works in partnership with schools in her constituency. Partnership working with charities and non-governmental organisations can be important in effective delivery of high-quality education.

Yvette Cooper: rose—

Mark Harper: At the risk of trying your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will give way to the shadow Home Secretary.

Yvette Cooper: I appreciate your tolerance, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	The Minister will be aware that sex and relationship education is not compulsory in schools and that there is no requirement to teach zero tolerance of violence in relationships. The legislation available before the election, which the current Secretary of State for Education personally blocked, would have made it possible for him to require zero tolerance of violence in relationships to be taught in our schools. Can the Minister give me any reason at all why he opposes that today?

Mark Harper: I have just said that good teaching in schools is essential. I am not sure the route the right hon. Lady sets out is a valid one. I will take no lectures from her on the urgency of the task. She was in government for 13 years. She is now complaining about failing to legislate in the wash-up at the tail-end of 13 years of Labour government. If she meant what she said, she would have done something about it. I am afraid that her strictures are rather hollow.
	This has been a very good debate. I think I am being glared at by Mr Deputy Speaker, and am being urged to bring it to a close. I am sorry that I have not been able to reference everyone who has spoken in this excellent debate. I think it will be followed by an equally excellent debate, with which Mr Deputy Speaker is keen to proceed.

Nigel Evans: For no more than two minutes, Fiona Mactaggart will sum up.

Fiona Mactaggart: I will be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to thank everybody who has contributed; it has been an excellent debate. I am grateful to hon. Members for pointing out that sex and relationships education based on zero tolerance to violence might be part of the solution. However, it is by no means all of the solution. We have had many excellent contributions about the other issues that need to be taken on board to bring to an end to violence against women and girls—we need to bring this violence to an end. We have made progress on some of these issues. We have to make practical progress now, and that is why I tabled this motion.
	I want us to vote on the motion, because we have heard one voice against it, and I will speak to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). In my political life, I have campaigned strongly for all victims of violence. In the past year, 109 women have been murdered by the people they loved. Domestic violence, the violence we have talked about in this debate, and the control that goes on inside ostensibly loving relationships, terrorises all of women. That is why this is a specific issue, and that is why we need to deal with it. Unless we can teach young men and young women that wherever we go, however we dress, no means no and yes means yes, we will not have a society in which women are safe.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House notes the One Billion Rising Campaign, and the call to end violence against women and girls; and calls on the Government to support this by introducing statutory provisions to make personal, social and health education, including a zero tolerance approach to violence and abuse in relationships, a requirement in schools.

Sexual Violence in Conflict

[Relevant documents: Written Evidence and uncorrected Oral Evidence from the International Development Committee, on Violence against Women and Girls, HC 934 and HC 934-I.]

Nicola Blackwood: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of preventing sexual violence in conflict.
	My favourite ever quote is not particularly erudite, which is not very good for an Oxford MP. It is from “The West Wing”, when Leo tells one of his members of staff:
	“Never let the urgent crowd out the important.”
	In a nutshell, that is why, with all the domestic pressures crowding in on us at the moment, I still prioritise my work with the all-party associate group on women, peace and security, and why I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to preventing sexual violence in conflict.
	Major General Cammaert, the former peacekeeping commander in Democratic Republic of the Congo, said in 2008:
	“It is now more dangerous to be a woman than a soldier in modern conflict.”
	In that year, 14,591 new cases of sexual violence were reported in DRC. Since 1998, it is believed that more than 200,000 Congolese women have been raped. Today, we still hear of widespread sexual violence in DRC, Syria, Sudan and South Sudan. Just last week, there was a report of a Somali woman who spoke up about being gang raped by state security forces only to be sentenced to a year in prison, along with the journalist who reported her story, for daring to speak up. This reflects the exponential growth of conflicts that target civilians, especially women and girls, as a means of intimidation and ethnic cleansing. Films such as “Hotel Rwanda” and “Shooting Dogs” mean that most people now know that the abuses that these women suffer are among the most horrific that any of us can imagine. Nevertheless, as if the failure to prevent this violence in the first place was not bad enough, these women are still routinely denied access to any form of justice, or any engagement with the peace processes that follow.
	Male victims, crimes against whom are even more chronically under-reported, face extreme stigma and almost non-existent access to services. It is almost impossible to estimate the scale of an abuse that remains largely unreported and unrecorded. I hope that the House will forgive me, however, given that I am chair of the all-party associate group on women, peace and security, if I focus my remarks on the issues affecting women in conflict. It is meant not to imply that the abuses suffered by male victims are less grave, but only to acknowledge that the protection challenges are different and that it is not my area of expertise. Whether the victims are male of female, however, the unpalatable fact is that the perpetrators prosper with impunity and that there remains little if any deterrent against sexual violence in most fragile and conflict-affected states.
	The primary responsibility for prosecuting these crimes must lie with the states themselves, of course, but where the rule of law has collapsed or is failing to enforce
	domestic and international laws to protect victims, the international community has a constructive and effective role to play in capacity building and challenging those states over the need for justice and accountability. Security Council resolution 1325 is the cornerstone of policy on gender and conflict. It was the first resolution to acknowledge that women experience different impacts from conflict and that this matters for global peace and security.
	In 2008-09, further resolutions concluded not only that violence against women was a criminal matter that could be addressed by justice systems once countries had stabilised, but that sexual and gender-based violence was often a deliberately deployed weapon of war, that a failure to stop violence against women was a failure to stop an abuse that catalysed and perpetuated conflict, and that until we started seeing violence against women as a security threat, we would never be able fully to achieve our defence, foreign policy and international development goals of conflict prevention and stabilisation.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend deserves great credit for having tabled this important motion, not least because, as she pointed out, girls and women are at the forefront of violence in the areas she identified. That is why so many of the Department for International Development’s programmes around the world specifically combat violence against women. Does she agree that it is hugely to the Government’s and particularly the Foreign Secretary’s credit that they have put this item squarely on the agenda for the G8 meeting in Britain later this year and that that helps to build on the international agreements that are aimed at tackling this subject and those which she has just mentioned?

Nicola Blackwood: I do indeed, and I thank the former International Development Secretary for his intervention. I know that he was a great champion of women’s rights when he was in that role. I hope that when the Foreign Secretary speaks, he will update us on progress at the G8 on this issue.
	All the statistics and stories tell us that women are most vulnerable to the worst human rights abuses imaginable, but they are more than that. Among the women I have met are those such as Jineth Bedoya, a Colombian journalist who will not stop challenging arms dealing in her country, despite being abducted, tortured and raped by paramilitaries and then being told that there would be no prosecutions, but that she could have either bodyguards or a ticket out of the country.
	Then there is Ikhlas Mohammed, a Darfuri survivor who speaks out continually about the abuses that women and girls have undergone in her community. The story she told still haunts me and demonstrates that practical solutions such as the preventing sexual violence initiative are not just western follies that tinker at the edges, but exactly what those who survive sexual violence are calling for. She told me this story: “I was in Tawila town when a girl’s primary school was attacked. The little girls in the school were raped, some in front of their families. Many were less than 10 years old. How do you stand being made to watch while someone rapes your daughter, or your mother or your sister? It is better to die than that. They use rape as a weapon. Now the women who were raped are pregnant they are unacceptable
	in their families. Most of the girls did not tell anyone they had been raped because of the stigma. If there is no justice, if there is no law, then everything has collapsed. We cannot stop women’s violence. We cannot stop rape. We cannot stop any kind of sexual violence towards women. We need justice. I am a representative of Darfurian women and we are looking for justice.”
	Those women who speak up after they have survived sexual violence and who challenge it regardless of the risk are not just victims. They are not even primarily victims. Many whom I have met have become exceptional human rights defenders and leaders in their own countries, calling for their right to live free from the fear of all kinds of violence, for their right to access services and, just as importantly, for sustainable stabilisation. They are calling for women to be considered and included in peace processes so that they can hold their own leaders to account. Those women are indomitable agents for change whose determination and strength of purpose is a resource for peace and security that we can ill afford to ignore. They are, in short, a good investment.
	I am delighted to welcome the Foreign Secretary’s preventing sexual violence initiative. I know from discussions with him and with the PSVI team that tackling sexual violence in conflict is a genuine personal passion of his, and I thank him for his leadership in driving the matter up the international agenda in a way that we have not seen since resolution 1325 was signed in 2000.

Fiona O'Donnell: Does the hon. Lady agree that we in the developed world also need to address this issue? Is she aware that 20% of US female veterans report that they have experienced sexual assault during their careers?

Nicola Blackwood: There is no question but that sexual violence is a problem in every country, and every country needs to take responsibility for tackling it. It is also a fact that in certain countries the rule of law has entirely collapsed, and in those countries there is much more scope for capacity building and support. The G8 countries and the international community can offer support in a way that will make an extraordinary difference to women’s lives.
	The all-party parliamentary group and our co-ordinating group—Gender Action for Peace and Security—have already taken every opportunity to engage with the PSVI team as the initiative develops. We have been making the case for participation, as well as protection and impunity, to be part of the PSVI package. We have emphasised that, in this sensitive area of policy, we need to take a “first, do no harm” approach, particularly by ensuring that support and protection are in place for the survivors of sexual violence and for those women human rights defenders who are brave enough to stand up but who face extreme intimidation and abuse.
	We must also ensure a sustainable impact by integrating the PSVI with the national action plans developed around resolution 1325, with the building stability overseas strategy and with other DFID and peace-building programmes so that there is no risk of duplication. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will give us an update today on his progress on the PSVI with the G8 member
	states, and on his plan for taking the initiative forward following the April Foreign Ministers’ meeting and beyond.
	The practical measures that the PSVI offers are the missing link in our international response to the risks that women face in conflict. A frequent problem is the failure to understand the risks in the first place. Much of the rhetoric around women in conflict-affected states fails to address the full range of roles that women might have played in the conflict. Some take part as combatants, others as field operations supporters and some as sex slaves. Their inclusion in peace processes, in disarmament, demobilisation, reintegration, repatriation and resettlement programmes and in intelligence networks is every bit as important as the inclusion of their male counterparts, whom we would not dream of excluding.
	Women represent 80% of refugees, along with their children. The number of war widows and female-headed families increases exponentially immediately after conflict, and those groups continue to face survival crises in post-conflict situations, making them even more vulnerable to sexual violence. They need access to employment programmes and to health, education, social and justice services if they are to protect themselves and, if they are already victims, to recover. However, post-conflict reconstruction and development analyses rarely prioritise and target women in conflict-related scenarios.
	This is a matter of seeing the protection and inclusion of women as an integral part of the security challenge of stabilisation. For example, roads and ports are needed for commerce, but they might not help women to access local economies if they do not connect to the smaller, rural markets that the women frequent. Employment programmes almost always target young men, to absorb them, away from conflict-related activity, but that can leave women without assistance of any kind. One capacity solution is to focus on recruiting women to front-line services such as criminal justice, health or education. That would serve the dual purpose of ensuring that women found the employment that they needed to prevent poverty and vulnerability, as well as ensuring that they had access to those services. Both those outcomes would offer stability and security benefits in peace-building efforts.

Mark Reckless: I have looked at the support our country provides for policing internationally, and our Departments now work together much better in that regard. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that there is further work for the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office to do in ensuring international policing support operates in the best possible way and also that such policing projects are adequately funded, given our domestic financial constraints?

Nicola Blackwood: My hon. Friend makes a good point about cross-departmental working. This is clearly an area in which MOD, FCO and DFID need to work well together, and there has been an enormous improvement in the approach to conflict situations over the past two years, and the conflict pool—BSOS—has played a big role in that. There will always be more work to do in ensuring Government Departments work together better, however.

Andrew Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the National Security Council, set up by this Government, has made a huge difference to that cross-departmental co-ordination? In Afghanistan, training the police is enormously important, and that greater co-ordination has had a major impact on the ground.

Nicola Blackwood: I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows much more about this matter than I do, as he speaks from considerable experience. I will say, however, that we should be working to recruit more women to the Afghan police, and ensuring that they can play a role in enabling women to have more secure lives in that country, where they face extreme violence daily.
	Whatever role women play, we need to get women involved in making peace, because without them peace-making and post-conflict stabilisation is more difficult and less likely to take into account the central issue of stopping the abuse of women or to be sustainable. There is a direct correlation between more inclusive models of negotiation and a greater chance of keeping the peace. The impact on the ground is clear. Melanne Verveer, who until last Friday was the first ever US ambassador for global women’s issues, noted at the end of 2010 that 31 of the world’s 39 active conflicts were recurrences of conflicts after peace settlements had been concluded, and that in all 31 cases women had been excluded from those peace processes. It is impossible not to conclude that, despite vocal support for the women, peace and security agenda, there has been negligible improvement in women’s participation in peace-building since resolution 1325 was signed in 2000.
	I hope the G8 agreements and the preventing sexual violence initiative will lead to a recognition that the protection of women from sexual violence and the participation of women in peace processes are two sides of the same coin. In the quests to end conflict-related sexual violence and to stabilise fragile and conflict-affected states, we do not get one without the other. In order to achieve our goal, we must get a commitment to put into practice the EU guidelines on human rights defenders.
	Over the past few years there has been an increase in geopolitical upheaval in the Arab world, which none of us could have anticipated. There has been famine in areas of east Africa and the Sahel, too, which is increasing the pressure on already fragile states, and international economic instability is widespread. As a result, the PSVI and related strategies to tackle violence against women and girls and the BSOS have never been more relevant. As the rate of political change accelerates in so many countries in the Arab world, and as conflict emerges and re-emerges unexpectedly in Mali, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Syria, and as the status of women becomes increasingly uncertain in those countries and many others experiencing instability, I hope we, too, can accelerate our rate of political change and embed the 1325 agenda as a fundamental part of our foreign policy response to fragile and conflict states.
	Ms Joy Ogwu, former president of UN Women, has said:
	“No one can run fast on one foot.”
	A security agenda that fails to prevent sexual violence in conflict, that fails to support women human rights defenders and leaders and that fails to ensure women’s participation has been a limping beast, but I believe that the PSVI and the Foreign Secretary’s personal commitment
	to championing this issue at the G8 can mark a turning point in the international rhetoric on women in conflict situations, so that we can finally begin to put into practice changes on the ground that will protect these women, who so desperately need it.

Gemma Doyle: I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) on her excellent speech in opening this debate. She began with a “West Wing” quote. I originally had a reference to “The West Wing” in my speech, but had taken it out; I shall now put it back in. I wanted to mention the episode “The Women of Qumar”. For anyone who recalls it, the President and his staff are managing a situation with the fictional country of Qumar—over an arms deal, I think. The President’s press secretary, C.J. Cregg says:
	“They beat women; they hate women; the only reason they keep Qumari women alive is to make Qumari men.”
	Unfortunately, I fear that that is not just a fictional situation for some women around the world.
	I feel that I cannot do justice to this subject today, not because of time constraints but because of the horror of some of the situations the debate is about. I had the privilege of attending a meeting here in Parliament in January 2011, addressed by Margot Wallström, the first ever special representative of the UN Secretary-General on sexual violence in conflict. Her term in the position came to an end last year, and she has been replaced by Zainab Bangura, a senior politician from Sierra Leone. I am sure that we all wish her well in that role.
	I am always struck by how we seem to accept that sexual violence is something that just happens—that it is a “fact of life” both at home in the UK and when it occurs in conflict. I do not accept that, and I think much more can be done to tackle it. In preparing for this debate, I unfortunately stumbled across some truly horrifying discussion boards, with comments illustrating appalling attitudes towards rape. While we are absolutely right to shine a light on these issues in a conflict setting, it is also true that the attitudes that lead to this behaviour exist in all societies. The issues we face here in the UK were well highlighted in our earlier debate.

Margot James: Does the hon. Lady recall a recent case this year in which a Muslim man found guilty of rape was exonerated by the judge on the grounds that he had received education in whatever educational establishment he attended, which had taught him that women were of no value? Does she agree with me that this attitude permeates fundamentalist thinking, and that it can be traced in many of the conflict situations emerging, particularly in north Africa?

Gemma Doyle: The hon. Lady is right to highlight that issue, but I believe that these attitudes can be found across all societies. They are absolutely not acceptable; we should do everything we can to combat them.
	Just as I believe that we will never entirely eliminate violence, it is unlikely that we will ever entirely eliminate sexual violence. The issues we are debating here today are depressing, upsetting and tragic—yet I think we have reason to be optimistic. If everything that could have been done had been done, and still no progress had
	been made, that would be a hopeless situation. I am optimistic because not nearly enough has been done, and I think that with the will and the resources we can drive down sexual violence in conflict. The investigation teams announced earlier this week were very welcome, and I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment, too, although we need a greater emphasis on prevention, along with a focus on investigation.
	There is no doubt that sexual violence is used as a weapon in war. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia found that an estimated 20,000 to 50,000 women and girls had been raped during the conflict; the Special Court for Sierra Leone estimated 50,000 to 64,000 had been similarly affected; and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda found that an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 girls and women had been raped.

Bob Stewart: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Gemma Doyle: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I do not. I want to make a bit of progress.
	Disgracefully, in all those examples, only relatively small numbers of men faced prosecution for their crimes, and most got away with them. The extent to which people can get away with such crimes is illustrated by what was said by Korto Williams, of ActionAid Liberia, in October last year:
	“It was routine during Liberia’s war for women to be raped at check points. Men who committed these crimes never faced the law and were allowed to act with impunity. Today we have had reports that at least one even became a Member of Parliament, representing the country, while the women he violated still wait for justice.”
	It is no wonder that women have no confidence in their ability to seek justice in the aftermath of such conflicts. Justice for crimes of sexual violence remains far too distant for far too many women, and they are often marginalised during the subsequent process of resolution. In far too many cases, the rights of women have been sacrificed in attempts to secure formal peace deals. In only 18 of more than 300 existing peace agreements is there any mention of sexual, gender-based violence, and even in modern peace agreements, the position and rights of women in society are still being threatened. I agree with ActionAid, which suggests that that is partly because women are not at the table during discussions, and considers that we should make it a priority to seek to guarantee places for them. Organisations such as ActionAid, Amnesty and Oxfam are working around the globe to try to tackle these issues, and I think that we should try to make progress by harnessing their knowledge and their networks on the ground.
	Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), the shadow Secretary of State of Defence, made an important speech outlining his ideas on early intervention, emphasising the need to work alongside our NATO colleagues in conflicts, and to monitor fragile states and, when we can, intervene to stop them from falling into conflict. Experience over the years has shown us the mistakes that have been often made in foreign interventions—mistakes that have cost women dearly in, for instance, the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
	I think the fact that for the first half of the current Parliament there was not one woman in the Foreign Office, the Department for International Development or the Ministry of Defence was an enormous step backwards. If we argue that women should be sitting around the table in peace negotiations throughout the world, we must surely accept that they should also be sitting around the table in the Departments that make so many decisions that affect women’s lives.

Andrew Mitchell: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Gemma Doyle: I am sorry; I am about to end my speech.
	There was no mention of sexual violence in conflict in the strategic defence and security review, and no recognition of that specific and particular weapon which is most commonly directed towards women. That is not unusual—I suspect that the subject has never been mentioned in a defence review—but it cannot be said that there was no place for it. There are parts of the SDSR in which it would have been entirely appropriate to raise the issue. Sexual violence is a weapon of war. It is about power, and about the abuse of power to humiliate and degrade. It causes untold misery, and it is the most obvious example I can think of that requires preventive work that can and should be done.
	Al-Jazeera has reported a 22% increase in crimes of violence against women in Afghanistan. Many people repeat the statement that we did not go into Afghanistan to improve women’s rights. That is true, but it does not negate our responsibility to those women, given that we have been in the country for more than a decade. We have an opportunity to leave a lasting legacy there in the context of women’s rights and, in particular, their basic security, which is the cornerstone of their rights. I do not doubt the sentiment of the Ministers who are involved in the discussions on Afghanistan’s future, but I am sure they will agree that warm words will be of no comfort to those women if the progress that has been made is whipped away.
	I have previously asked Foreign Office Ministers if they will support a guaranteed 30% women’s representation at the London 2014 summit on Afghanistan’s future. I am delighted that the Foreign Secretary is to respond to the debate, because that enables me to put the challenge to him again today. I urge Ministers—in fact, I beg them—not to let this issue slip to the bottom of their negotiating list. All of us who enjoy protections and freedom in this country, regardless of our gender, have a responsibility to the women of Afghanistan and to women all over the world.

William Hague: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) on securing and launching this debate, and welcome the words of the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle). I also welcome the opportunity this debate gives me to update the House on our initiative on preventing sexual violence in conflict and to take into account, in developing that initiative, the issues that have been and will be raised by hon. Members.
	We have set ourselves a very important and very practical goal: to use the United Kingdom’s diplomatic influence and resources to increase the number of perpetrators of sexual violence who are brought to justice and to help to build up the legal and practical capability of other countries to tackle these crimes. We are determined to confront the culture of impunity, to overturn the age-old assumption that rape is somehow an inevitable by-product of conflict, and to rally the world to do more to help survivors. I have made it my personal priority, as has been said, during the UK’s presidency of the G8 this year to ask all the G8 nations to make practical commitments to help us towards that goal. We have had representatives of the G8 here in London this week, and I have met them in advance of the meeting of G8 Foreign Ministers in April. The agreements we reach at the G8 we will then take to the United Nations.
	We are pursuing this initiative for many reasons, many of which have been mentioned already, so I shall not dwell on them. In our lifetimes, millions of women, men and children have endured the horror of rape and sexual violence in conflict, including in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bosnia, South Sudan, Colombia and Afghanistan, and in Syria today. The sad truth is that the perpetrators of these appalling, life-shattering crimes still go unpunished far more often than not. In many situations, survivors endure the fear and torment of their abusers living freely in their communities. This shocking culture of impunity is a moral issue. Survivors face emotional and psychological pain, physical injuries, disease and social ostracism. They have a right to justice and support, and to live dignified lives.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon pointed out, tackling the use of rape as a weapon of war is also central to a just foreign policy, because the psychological and physical trauma suffered by survivors affects whole communities, exacerbating ethnic, sectarian and other divisions long into the future, and preventing reconciliation. I have seen the consequences with my own eyes in some of the countries I have visited as Foreign Secretary and that has left a deep impression on me.
	Ours is a country that can actually do something about this issue. Many countries might feel powerless in the face of it, but we have one of the largest diplomatic networks in the world and one of the largest development programmes of any nation, and we have a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council and play a leading role in UN agencies. Given that we have those assets and resources, and that concern for human rights and development in other countries is part of our national DNA, we should use those resources. I am absolutely convinced that shattering the culture of impunity for sexual violence in conflict is one of the great global challenges for our generation.
	Some 200 years ago, this Parliament confronted the Atlantic slave trade. Now we are seeking, across parties, an international arms trade treaty. Our objective on this issue must be global action to end the use of rape as a weapon of war. Indeed, we have an even greater responsibility in the case of tackling sexual violence, because it affects women disproportionately. Ours is a world in which women in many countries still suffer discrimination, oppression and exclusion, and any effort that advances women’s rights must be pursued with the
	greatest resolve and commitment. I pay tribute to hon. Members from all parts of this House and in the other place who have drawn my attention to this issue, and who have championed women’s rights for many years.
	Our aspiration is, of course, an end to violence against women—in any context, not just conflict, although that is what this initiative is particularly focused on. The Foreign Office works very closely with the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence on the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1325 as a whole as well. I am proud that our Government have a ministerial champion on tackling violence against women and girls overseas, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone).
	The initiative, which I announced nine months ago, has three main practical components. First, we have set up the first ever unit in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office entirely dedicated to working on the issue. The unit comprises officials from the FCO as well as from the Department for International Development and it is working full time to lobby other Governments and international organisations. It is focused extensively on our presidency of the G8, but the work will continue beyond this year.
	Secondly, we have created a new specialist team of experts that can be deployed to conflict areas to address sexual violence. We have now recruited more than 70 experts. I met many of them a couple of weeks ago and they include police, lawyers, psychologists, doctors, forensic experts, gender-based violence experts and experts in the care and protection of survivors and witnesses. The objectives for each deployment of the team of experts will, of course, depend on needs in the country concerned but they will usually support a UN mission, assist a non-governmental organisation working on the ground or be deployed at the request of the national authorities of that country.
	We have already deployed the team to Syria’s borders, alongside the NGO Physicians for Human Rights, to train local health professionals in how to respond to reports of sexual violence. We will expand that work this year and will deploy a team again to help Syrian refugees. The prevention of sexual violence was included in our project with the Syrian opposition on raising awareness of the rules of armed conflict.
	I announced a few weeks ago that we will deploy the team of experts to at least four other countries this year: to Libya, to support survivors of sexual violence committed during the revolution; to South Sudan, to work alongside the UN and Government to strengthen local justice; to the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, to help doctors and lawyers to investigate crimes against the hundreds of women and girls who are raped each month; and to Bosnia and Herzegovina, to help courts and prosecutors to address the backlog of war crimes cases and to protect survivors and witnesses for the thousands of women who are still waiting for justice 20 years after the war.
	An effective response to sexual violence needs to be built into every aspect of conflict prevention and peace-building overseas. We have offered members of our team of experts as part of the EU military training mission to Mali to provide human rights training to the Malian armed forces on preventing and responding to sexual violence in the conflict taking place there now.

Fiona O'Donnell: I welcome all the action that the Foreign Secretary is driving forward and the leadership he is giving. Does he agree that it is vital that the Prime Minister, in his leadership role in agreeing the post-2015 framework, should ensure that women’s rights are always on the agenda?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely. The Prime Minister is supportive of the initiative and determined that it should be part of that agenda, too. Our initiative is focused particularly on sexual violence in conflict and we should maintain that focus. Of course, we can add more to it but it is important to make great progress—and to show the world that we can make progress—on this aspect of sexual violence with the particular characteristics of rape when systematically used as a weapon of war.
	At the same time as taking the other actions I have mentioned, we have significantly increased our support for the UN Secretary-General’s special representative on sexual violence in conflict. We have provided £1 million in funding to her office and this week I announced that we will contribute an additional £500,000 to the International Criminal Court’s trust fund for victims, bringing our total support to £1.5 million in the past two years.
	Thirdly, we have pledged, as I mentioned briefly, to use our presidency of the G8 this year to seek new commitments from some of the world’s most powerful nations. We have consulted UN agencies, the International Criminal Court and NGOs on how to make the most of that opportunity, and we have listened to the views of 75 experts from more than 26 countries who attended a conference we ran at Wilton Park in November, which I also attended. On the basis of those consultations, when I chair the meeting of G8 Foreign Ministers in London in April I will ask them to declare that rape and serious sexual violence amount to “grave breaches” of the Geneva conventions, signalling that we are prepared to pursue domestic prosecution of such crimes on the basis of universal jurisdiction.
	We have also proposed a set of practical commitments to promote greater accountability and to overcome the most significant barriers to progress in this area. Those barriers are the poor quality of investigation and documentation of incidents of sexual violence in conflict; the inadequate support and assistance to survivors; the failure of wider peace and security efforts to address such issues; and the lack of international co-ordination.
	In developing the commitments we have been careful to identify suggestions that we believe will have a real practical impact and will make concrete progress on the ground. Our proposed new international protocol, for example, on the investigation and documentation of sexual violence in conflict should improve the evidence base from which investigations and prosecutions can be drawn.
	We will suggest that the G8 provide greater protection and support to women human rights defenders, one of the target users of this new protocol, which will result in better documented cases, further building the evidence base. Doing so will also strengthen the support they provide to the survivors of sexual violence, as would broader G8 support for health, psychosocial and rehabilitation services, which will result in survivors feeling readier to pursue prosecutions.
	We will also press the G8 to ensure that an improved response to sexual violence is reflected in their own security and justice sector reform programmes, as well as in any support that they provide to national legislative reform. Such actions would help to provide the domestic legal and institutional framework within which survivors can act which, if supported by more coherent international support to strengthen UN efforts, would further build this national capacity.
	These commitments are ambitious. I am firmly of the view that taken together they will begin a comprehensive global response to tackling impunity for sexual violence through a combination of legal and practical interventions which complement existing international activity, but target gaps in the current global response. We have had encouraging and supportive responses from G8 partners and from others, including Australia, New Zealand and countries most directly affected by the issue, such as the new Government in Somalia. There is also enthusiasm to do more in the OSCE, the African Union and NATO. This is a time to take the issue forward. I believe we can develop a critical mass of support which will lead to serious concrete progress over the next couple of years.
	What we started nine months ago and what we are going to do at the G8 is just the beginning of a long effort. We will do our utmost to galvanise greater collective action. We will take this cause to the United Nations, including to the UN Security Council in June when we hold the presidency of the council, and at the UN General Assembly in September, when we will hope to increase support for the concept of a new international protocol on the issue. I hope that the Government will have the support, advice and encouragement of Members across the House in taking forward this vital issue at a moment in world affairs when we genuinely have the opportunity to pursue it and to make a difference, for the sake of hundreds of thousands and millions of people affected by these appalling crimes.

Douglas Alexander: I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) on securing this important and timely debate in the House today. It is timely, not least because of recent developments at the United Nations and in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and it represents a significant issue that deserves proper time, attention, debate and indeed action.
	I welcome the personal interest shown by the Foreign Secretary in advancing work on this issue and recognise his personal efforts to raise the issue on the international agenda. Where there is agreement in all parts of the House, it is only right that it be acknowledged, and on this issue, the Foreign Secretary has our full support in the efforts that he has made to prioritise the prevention of sexual violence in conflict both for the United Kingdom and for the wider international community. His efforts have been widely acknowledged and are rightly praised.
	However, the recent work of the Foreign Secretary builds on decades of vital and important work done by countless charities, non-governmental organisations, political leaders and human rights activists. I am sure the Foreign Secretary would agree with me when I say that their unrelenting commitment to this issue is what
	has helped ensure that the issue today is becoming more of a focus for Governments right around the world. Our efforts today build on the work of many and it is only right that we pay tribute to their contribution. In particular, it is right to single out the work that women human rights defenders do on this crucial issue. Those working in this area are often subject to the gravest threats and risks, facing intimidation, abduction and even killings by those who oppose the work they do. They do it simply because they are there to do the right thing. Much more must be done to support these groups and promote their agenda so that theirs is not a struggle they face alone.
	I welcome the work already being done by the recently appointed UN Secretary-General’s special representative on sexual violence in conflict, Zainab Bangura. Hers is a crucial and difficult task, which is why we fully support the recent pledge Her Majesty’s Government made to offer direct financial support to help fund her office.
	Given the degree of cross-party support on the issue, I will echo some of the sentiments already expressed by colleagues in the Chamber before turning to the specific package of measures the Foreign Secretary has set out. When debating policy responses on this issue, it is only right that we first take time to acknowledge the sheer scale of the challenge, and indeed the extent of the suffering, that we are seeking to address. More than 75% of rapes in England are never reported to the police, so it should come as no surprise that we know very little of the true extent of sexual violence committed in conflict. However, there must be no doubt that rape and sexual violence are used today as weapons of war, and indeed as weapons of torture and mass persecution. The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, has rightly described sexual violence as
	“the most pervasive violation of human rights across the globe”.
	It is time for the international community to step up its efforts to respond to that harrowing truth.
	The conflicts that have in part defined the last decades of war have themselves in part been defined by the prevalent and tragic use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. During the 1994 Rwandan genocide, more than 250,000 women were raped, and 50,000 women were reported to have been raped during the war between Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. During the post-election violence in Cote D’Ivoire in 2010-11, sexual violence was widespread, with over 50% of reported incidents involving children. Although deeply disturbing, the statistics cannot do justice to the scale of human suffering involved; it is only the personal accounts that come close to beginning to shed light on the scale of the horror that the use of sexual violence in conflict inflicts on its victims. The horrors continue today in the conflicts that still rage across the world.
	It is therefore right that the UK has made the issue a priority for our presidency of the G8. We sincerely welcome the steps that the Government have taken to help direct efforts at both UK and international level towards addressing the issue. The Foreign Secretary will therefore have our continued support in his efforts to ensure that tackling sexual violence in conflict receives the attention and, crucially, the resources that it rightly deserves.
	However, I am sure that the Foreign Secretary would agree that the real challenge we face collectively is how to influence the facts on the ground in conflict areas. The true measure of the success and effectiveness of any steps agreed by the G8 will be their capacity to effect change in some of the most difficult and dangerous regions of the world.
	Let me turn to the specific package of measures the Foreign Secretary has set out. We welcome the Government’s preventing sexual violence initiative. It is right that one of its key components is trying to overcome the apparent impunity that has existed on the issue until today. Sexual violence as a tool of war remains one of the least prosecuted crimes. We need to do more to improve accountability on the issue more generally. That is why the work of the specialist teams the Foreign Secretary spoke about, which will be deployed to conflict areas, is welcome. The work they do to gather evidence, help build local capacity and help civil society to investigate alleged crimes will be vital. Tragically, however, demand will always outstrip the capacity of even those groups when documenting and prosecuting crimes on such an horrendous scale. That is why we support calls to ensure that this UK-led taskforce is also focused on building up local in-country capacity to deliver the necessary accountability without leaving countries totally dependent on welcome but necessarily outside support.
	Also key to any effective response are efforts to improve international co-operation and co-ordination to prevent sexual violence in conflict on the ground. That level of co-ordination is best achieved through the United Nations, so it is vital, as we have heard, that the necessary resources are made available to the relevant departments so that well-meaning objectives can be turned into concrete outcomes. That is why we hope that the Government will consider recent reports that the gender-based violence area of responsibility within the United Nations remains chronically underfunded. Effective prevention must also extend to regulations on the supply of arms and trade in arms, which are too often ultimately used in so many of the conflicts where sexual violence becomes prevalent. In effect, the irresponsible transfer of military equipment across borders fuels gender-based violence within global war zones, and the equipment is also transferred outside war zones, remaining in operation long after conflicts have officially ended.
	In that regard, we will be encouraging the Government to clarify their position in relation to the upcoming negotiations on the arms trade treaty at the United Nations. As the Foreign Secretary will be aware, article 4.6 of the draft text, which explicitly refers to gender-based violence, requires states only to “consider” taking measures to prevent arms sales from facilitating such abuses. Many argue that this provision must be strengthened if the treaty is to have a hope of providing effective prevention, and must therefore stipulate that all practical measures to ensure weapons are never used to perpetrate or facilitate acts of gender-based violence be included in the treaty.
	Let me turn to the specific regions where I am sure that the Government recognise that we have not only a strategic interest but, potentially, an operational advantage. It is only right to acknowledge that the prevention of sexual violence in conflict is not confined to those countries that are technically defined as being at war.
	Afghanistan still reels from the effects of conflict in recent years. Given our operational capacities on the ground there, I would welcome the Government’s making it a priority area for UK efforts on this issue. The Government’s stated objective of making Somalia’s stabilisation and development a UK strategic priority means that any UK-led initiatives in that country should focus on responding to the reported use of sexual violence during decades of conflict and on ensuring that everything possible is being done to prevent its re-emergence in future.
	No one can deny that at its core the issue we are debating is a moral one. The suffering and scale of the terror alone should be justification enough for the international community to act. However, the Foreign Secretary is right to say that it is also a foreign policy issue and therefore a strategic imperative for the United Kingdom in working together with the international community in its efforts to do more. The use of sexual violence in conflict not only makes the conflicts themselves harder to resolve but contributes to making their legacy even harder for local communities ever to overcome, in turn perpetuating precisely the type of insecurity that it is in our collective national interests to prevent.
	Ultimately, the best remedy to prevent the use of sexual violence in conflict is to put an end to conflict. That might seem to be straightforward common sense, but it should inform all our efforts on this issue, because that means that any approach to tackling it will always be embedded within a broader strategy for preventing conflict, promoting stability, and protecting against insecurity. Where the Government are taking steps, as they are, to advance this kind of approach, they will have our full support.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. In order to try to accommodate the half dozen colleagues seeking to contribute, I have imposed with immediate effect a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I want to express my pride that Britain is leading the world in tackling this important issue. Given that so many conflicts around the world are ethnic in nature, it is perhaps not surprising that sexual violence as a weapon of war is becoming increasingly prevalent. I encourage my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to make every effort to take the rest of the world with him on his quest.
	We have talked about some of the countries around the world where rape is being witnessed. I remind the House that we should not think that this is limited to faraway lands or countries that are less developed than our own, because it happened right here in Europe less than 25 years ago. I feel some shame that it happened so close to our doorstep. It is also shaming that so few people in Bosnia-Herzegovina have been brought to justice for the many rapes that took place there. The intent to dehumanise and degrade was an obvious weapon of war in that ethnic conflict.
	I am mainly moved to address the House because of a story from Kosovo that I heard. I had the privilege of visiting Kosovo some 18 months ago. I met a very
	inspirational lady there, and I want to share some of the things she said. We can talk glibly about sexual violence in theoretical terms, but this story really brings it to life.
	Flora Brovina is a Member of Parliament in Kosovo and a well-known Albanian feminist and poet. She was a paediatrician by profession. As the political situation in Kosovo deteriorated in the 1990s and fighting broke out, Flora was one of the community leaders. She rallied support for women and got involved in giving health care to victims of the war and giving shelter to those who were orphaned.
	As a consequence, she became a high-profile target for the Serb paramilitaries and, sure enough, she was abducted in 1999. She was tortured and interrogated before being tried and convicted of terrorist activities, but thankfully, due to international pressure, she was eventually released. By then her family had claimed asylum in the US. It was probably anticipated that she would follow them, but that was not for Flora. She wanted to go back to Kosovo to help the women and children who were victims of the war.
	Flora is doing a great deal of work to support that conflict’s victims of rape. She has told me in great detail about the impact it has had on some of those women. The circumstances of the rapes that took place are horrifying. They have been well documented by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I will not go into the details, but I would encourage other Members to do so, because they bring to life the horror of the use of sexual violence in conflicts.
	Flora also told me about how families treat women. Although this is a European society that is not very far from us, it is very rural and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, a society in which women’s rights are not as advanced as they are here. Given the ethnic nature of the conflict, the Serbs knew how those of the Muslim faith would treat victims of rape, so it was deliberately used as a weapon.
	The rights that we enjoy in the UK mean that it is difficult for us to grasp the impact on those women, who are often ostracised. It is natural for people to look to their families for support but, often, these families witnessed the rapes, so there is a double crime and it is very difficult for the women to grasp what has happened to them. It is difficult to understand just how lonely the victims’ plight can be. Flora was anxious for me to highlight the fate of those women and I am pleased to be able to do so today. I am also humbled by it, because all I am doing is talking. The day-to-day suffering of the women and, often, the children born as a consequence of what happened to them is very real.
	That is why I am so proud of the initiative being taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We must go after the perpetrators. It is unacceptable that only 30 people have been convicted in Bosnia. We must also make sure that we do our bit through our humanitarian work to give support to victims, so that they are not left alone, as they have been in Kosovo.
	I cannot do adequate justice to the forgotten victims of sexual violence in Kosovo, but I hope that today I have done my bit to bring to life what it means in practice and to give added resolve to the Government to ensure that this issue is central to our humanitarian and diplomatic activities.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. On the assumption of reasonable self-discipline in the taking of interventions, I think I can up the limit to six minutes per Member.

Fiona O'Donnell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall show myself to be the mistress of self-discipline.
	It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). I am particularly glad that she referred to the war in Bosnia. Amnesty International’s report, “When everyone is silent”, was published last October and sets out for the Foreign Secretary—I am pleased that the International Development Secretary is also present—the scale of the challenge that we face in ensuring, first, that women feel able to come forward and tell their stories and, secondly, that justice will be done if they find the courage to do so.
	I also congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) on securing this debate, and I am sure she will not mind me mentioning that, although the Order Paper does not reflect it, there was cross-party support for it. She should not apologise for not talking much about violence against men, because I remember following her when she made her maiden speech in the Chamber in which she spoke with passion about a project in her constituency for men who were suffering domestic violence. Although the prevalence of men who suffer sexual violence in conflict zone is not as great, the stigma for them is considerable. They can even find themselves criminalised and imprisoned because they are deemed by the nation to have taken part in an immoral crime.
	I am pleased to be speaking in this debate because I am a member of the International Development Committee, which is currently undertaking an inquiry into violence against women and girls. I know that the Foreign Secretary said that it was important to realise that we are talking specifically about sexual violence in conflict zones, but we wanted to broaden our report to make it more general. I do not feel like we have had two separate debates this afternoon because every issue that was raised in the last debate affects our capacity to have an impact on sexual violence in conflict zones. If women are not supported by the justice system in their state or know that they will have to return to a community where they will be stigmatised, they will not come forward or seek justice.
	I wrote to a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about a woman who was raped in Egypt. When the doctor was collecting the forensic evidence, he could not find the correct instruments and used a pair of scissors to try to take swabs. The woman said that that examination was worse than the rape. We need to be honest and admit that that is the situation in many countries. Although we want to support women, there is a lot of work to be done not just by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but by the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence to ensure that women, girls, boys and men who are victims of sexual violence get the justice that they seek when they come forward.
	I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s speech and his commitment. It is clear that he has real passion for this issue. However, I have some questions and hope that we can get a bit more detail about how he intends to achieve his aims. I am glad that he told the House that he will be working closely with DFID. I do not intend to be critical or to score party political points, but it is important that we are honest. What does he believe would be an indication of success? Does he have any numbers in mind or any particular areas that he wants to concentrate on? How is he working with DFID? It is important that the resources are given directly to projects in other countries that support women and girls who are the victims of sexual violence. It would be helpful to have more detail on how the two Departments are working together.
	It is important, unpleasant as it is, for us to try to get inside the minds of the men who carry out these dreadful violent crimes. We must understand that when a soldier comes from a country where there is no respect for women and where women have no rights and are excluded in every way, it is much easier for them to take the final step of committing an act of sexual violence. That is why it is vital that the work with DFID continues. We must try to effect change in those countries. If we do not change the situation with regard to sexual violence against women and girls in peace and in conflict, at home and in developing countries, we will not achieve the laudable aims that the Foreign Secretary has set out.

Margot James: The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Without wishing to compromise the focus of the Foreign Secretary’s initiative, which I support wholeheartedly, as I am sure she does, I agree with her that women’s unequal status and the misogyny that exists in many societies are both a cause and a consequence of the sexual violence that we are discussing this afternoon.

Fiona O'Donnell: I thank the hon. Lady. I would go even further and say that countries that have such an attitude toward women are far more likely to be involved in conflict in the first place.
	Let us call today for a swift and just international response to sexual violence against women, girls, boys and men. We have to acknowledge that the most effective way for us to improve the lives of women and girls, so that they can live free from the fear of violence and its devastating effects, is to work to bring about change across a whole range of issues—education, training, employment, access to finance, health care and justice. Those are the ways in which we can protect women and make it possible for them to come forward and tell their stories, so that we can deliver justice and so that their daughters will have a different story to tell.

Heather Wheeler: I appreciate that time is short, so I will get straight to the point.
	There are two major areas in which girls and women who are raped in situations of armed conflict are repeatedly discriminated against. The first is the routine denial of safe abortion services to those victims of war, in violation of their right to non-discriminatory medical care under international human law, and the second is the failure to treat rape and the deliberate transmission of HIV as prohibited weapons or methods of war.
	The denial of abortions to girls and women raped in armed conflict was recently the focus on debate in the House of Lords, and it has been the subject of many parliamentary questions. The Government responded by acknowledging that they considered girls and women raped in armed conflict to be the “wounded and sick”, and that they are entitled to non-discriminatory medical care, including abortions. They have also acknowledged that international humanitarian law, not national law, is the legal framework that must be obeyed in the provision of humanitarian aid. However, those acknowledgments are insufficient without concrete action to ensure that that right is granted to the wounded women who need it.
	What concrete action could the Government take? To begin with, they could recognise that the right to abortion for girls and women raped in armed conflict is protected under humanitarian law and is not subject to national laws on abortion. That should be explicitly included in all relevant Government policy guidance, including the Department for International Development’s “Safe and unsafe abortion” practice paper.
	Rape and the deliberate transmission of HIV are acknowledged as being used as weapons of war, but neither is treated as a prohibited weapon or method of warfare. Despite global recognition that they are used as weapons of war, they are invisible in weapons regulation. They none the less violate core principles of humanity in international humanitarian law, and as such they should be treated as prohibited weapons of war. The failure to treat war rape like other illegal weapons prevents victims from being entitled to reparations for their injuries. Victims should be entitled to have the perpetrators held accountable for their crimes. For that reason, the failure to treat rape as part of the international framework that regulates the means and methods of warfare is particularly confounding. We regulate starvation under that framework, so why not rape and sexual violence?
	In April, the Government will work to secure a clear political statement from the G8 of its determination to make real, tangible progress on combating the use of sexual violence in conflict. However, if we are truly to lead, we must speak up for those who do not have a voice and bring awareness to issues that are often neglected or left out of the conversation. Acknowledging the issue is not enough, and talk is not enough. The UK must take concrete steps to ensure the provision of abortion services for women raped in war and to bring rape into the prohibited weapons or methods of war framework.

Seema Malhotra: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) and others. This is the year of the UK’s presidency of the G8, and G8 Foreign Ministers will be meeting in London. I am glad to hear the Foreign Secretary’s assurances that the issue will be high on the agenda. I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) for initiating the debate, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and the V-day One Billion Rising campaign that has called for and set the scene for today’s action.
	The V-day campaign, which continues to drive the global movement to end violence against women and girls, has a strong history. In 2009 I joined its campaign to end sexual violence in the Congo and signed a letter urging the G20 to take steps to stop the war and violence. I extend my appreciation to all those who tackle violence against women and girls in our local communities and across the world, often placing themselves at risk. In Feltham and Heston I mention especially the new Hounslow one-stop shop, which last November launched a free advice service for victims of domestic violence and those who have suffered violence in other ways. The project is run jointly by the Met police, Hounslow community safety unit and the Hounslow domestic violence outreach service. Our communities also contain those who have suffered from sexual violence in conflict—I had a constituent who came to see me; the war has stopped, but her suffering, and that of her family, continues.
	We know that in war zones, victims of sexual violence do not have their own local support networks or local crime prevention teams. For many, however, there is no protection, which is why the international community must stand together. Sexual violence in conflict is, of course, a moral issue and, as has been discussed, central to foreign policy. I am glad that the issue finds agreement on all sides of the House.
	Rape in war is the darkest of military tactics, used to degrade and humiliate victims and undermine their families or the ethnic, religious and political groups to which they belong. Last year’s annual UN report on sexual violence during conflict provided horrific examples of how sexual violence has threatened security and impeded peace building in post-conflict situations such as those in Chad, Sri Lanka and Sierra Leone. In addition to the thousands of women who we know have been raped, it has been estimated that 50,000 women were raped in the war in Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina, 250,000 in Rwanda, and 64,000 in Sierra Leone. From Syria we see in our newspapers today examples of women being raped in prison and in their homes. We have also seen the rape of men in many conflict zones, and that will be part of the agenda of tackling sexual violence. The major-general at the helm of the UN peace-keeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo stated:
	“It has become more dangerous to be a woman fetching water or collecting firewood than to be a fighter on the front line.”
	As we move forward with the G8 this year, I am sure we will continue the momentum to secure new international action against the use of rape and sexual violence as a weapon of war. I hope that action will focus on both investigations and prosecutions, as well as on prevention. Conviction rates of sexual violence in conflict are an international disgrace.
	The strategy to end sexual violence must be couched within a strategy of support for women’s rights. Yesterday I welcomed to Parliament some key members of the global women’s rights movements. Activists from Africa and Asia were brought together in London by the charity Womankind to share their experiences and expertise of women’s leadership, tackling gender violence in their own countries, and political participation. Sexual violence is not just a problem in conflict areas. The brutal rape and murder in India at Christmas of a 23-year-old on a bus showed that we must tackle violence against women
	in all its forms and in all countries of the world so that attitudes of acceptability are not shaped for current or future generations.
	This debate, along with our earlier debate, is important and seeks to end the continuing violence against women and ensure that that issue is a priority for us and our partners abroad. In conclusion, this is a challenge of enormous scale and a campaign that must cross nations and cultures. I am pleased it is on the agenda for the Foreign Secretary, and I hope that in his remarks he will answer a few questions. First, what support has he achieved from the international community? It should be not just on the agenda, but high on the agenda. Secondly, how will the strategies that are beginning be sustained by the G8 and other international bodies? How will they be reflected not just in foreign policy, but in our defence and international development policies, so that there is an end to sexual violence in conflicts in our generation?

Bob Stewart: I saw rape used as a weapon of war when I was in Bosnia in 1992-93. Between 25,000 and 50,000 women were raped during the Bosnian war. At Foca, Visegrad, Omarska and Prijedor, rape camps were deliberately set up to be used by visiting Bosnian-Serb soldiers when they felt like it. My wife, Claire Podbielski-Stewart—she was then Claire Podbielski—was involved as a member of the International Committee of the Red Cross in visiting Prijedor to try to stop what was happening there.
	Elsewhere, individually, women were raped in front of their families—their husbands and their children. Do Members really understand how ghastly that must be for the families? The woman and the husband are demeaned, and the children are terrorised and horrified. They will be horrified for the rest of their lives.
	Too often, once that foul crime has been committed, everyone is killed. I found a family outside a house near Vitez—mother, daughter, son and husband in a line. The daughter was holding a puppy. She was killed by the bullet that killed the puppy. I took the family to the local morgue. I went past the same place the next day to discover they had been returned. They were the wrong religion in the morgue. How ghastly is sexual violence in war. How foul.
	My soldiers buried 104 people in a mass grave, which I revisited last year. We think there were a 104 people. Most were women; a lot of them were children. It was foul, it was ghastly, and it was most definitely something that we should campaign to stop. I applaud what the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for International Development and others are doing to try to stop the revolting practice of sexual violence in war.

Brooks Newmark: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Bob Stewart: I will, if my hon. Friend is quick.

Brooks Newmark: I will be quick.
	I would draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that not only the rape itself is ghastly, but the conviction and prosecution rates. In the field where he fought, only one in 20,000 perpetrators of those crimes were prosecuted.
	Will he therefore join me in welcoming the international protocol proposed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, which will ensure prosecution and investigation?

Bob Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend—that was quick. Of course, I agree with him. I have given evidence in five trials. I am thrilled that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has brought charges against people for rape as a crime against humanity, and secured convictions. I am fully aware that not even one in every 100 people guilty of such crimes in Bosnia have been brought to justice.
	I am delighted that in Europe, for the first time ever, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is bringing rape convictions. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda started the process, and it is a great move. We must send a firm message to the whole world that sexual violence is considered as one of the gravest crimes.
	I will end by commending our British soldiers. Shall I tell the House what a solider said to me when a previous Foreign Secretary—a Conservative one at that—gave me an order to start planning a withdrawal from Bosnia in December 1992? I wandered out and said to a soldier, “I am planning our withdrawal.” He said, “We’re not withdrawing, sir.” I said, “Well, we might have to if I am ordered by the Government to do so.” He said, “Not me, sir.” I said, “Why not?” He said, “Our duty is here protecting these women, children and the vulnerable. That is what we are here to do.” We never did withdraw, but my goodness that shows the quality of our soldiers. We hear far too many stories about how badly our armed forces behave, but here was a soldier who showed the quality of person we send out to put our values into the world outside our country.

Sheila Gilmore: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who knows exactly what the situations are like, and can tell us so graphically the experiences he has seen with his own eyes. It was important that this debate was secured, and it is appropriate to pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary, the shadow Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development. I mention the first two in particular, because they have given up their time to be here for the whole of this important debate. That is significant, and it sends a message that we see this as a very important issue. Some people may watch this debate, possibly at some unearthly hour of the morning on the Parliament channel, and think that there were not many people present, that it looks a bit thin, and that we cannot really think of the subject as important. However, the fact that senior figures have given up their time shows that it is very important.
	As several hon. Members have said, this subject challenges those of us who would prefer no conflict at all, who would like to say that the answer is for there to be no war and that we should not get involved. It is a challenge to decide when to intervene, how to intervene and what ways there are to intervene. The examples we have heard from the former Yugoslavia vindicate intervention. The violence was occurring anyway; it did not happen because we intervened. Hopefully, some women, who might otherwise have been affected, were saved The challenge remains, because in all situations
	we have to ask ourselves whether it is right to intervene, or whether we would provoke an existing conflict. Some conflicts arise from some of the gross inequality in the world and its resources, so there are many things that we can do to prevent such situations.

Nicola Blackwood: Given that sexual violence is recognised as a key factor destabilising and catalysing conflict in the first place, does the hon. Lady not agree that tackling sexual violence and preventing it in the first place is one way to prevent conflict and achieve exactly the aim she calls for?

Sheila Gilmore: I agree absolutely. With a subject this big, it is sometimes tempting to think, “Well, it’s always been there throughout history.” We know that. The history of conflict going back hundreds of years contains examples of such behaviour, but 40 years ago, when the big campaigns on violence against women started in this country with the setting up of domestic violence refuges and so on, people said the same thing: “You’ll never change it. It’s always been there. It’s endemic.” Although we heard earlier how far we have left to go, even in our own country, progress has been made. Sometimes, when dealing with difficulties in the justice system and so on, it feels like three steps forward and two steps back, but nevertheless we have made some progress and changed attitudes. I do not wish to sound complacent, but those of us who started campaigns in the early days have seen a difference. If we make an effort, we can begin to change how people think and behave and how they are treated, so although, with a subject this big, people might think, “What can we do? What can anybody do?”, we must make an effort and start to change things.
	Members of peacekeeping forces have a particular responsibility when it comes to their behaviour and attitudes. It is crucial that our own armed forces—and I am sure that they do—lead by example in how they treat women, including female members of the armed services in the field. One way to change things is by involving far more women in the process of change in their own countries and peace processes. As many people have said, far too few women feature in the big meetings and peace conferences. Where are the women? It is important that their voices be heard and that they be encouraged and given the tools to start to change things, not just for their own generation but for future generations.

Bob Stewart: Women need to be represented at peace conferences, but they can be only if they are leaders in their own communities. That is how we can assure their representation; we have to try to do that.

William Hague: indicated assent.

Bob Stewart: I see the Foreign Secretary nodding.

Sheila Gilmore: Many people who have been in conflict zones have fantastic stories to tell about women who can speak up, who have spoken up and who need to be heard. Admittedly, there are not enough of them and building from the bottom up is clearly important, but some are there already. We need to hear from them.
	Yes, this is a big subject, but let us not just come back in a year or two and have the same discussion; let us instead come back and feel that there has been real progress.

Brooks Newmark: I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for indulging me in my request. I was trying to be in two debates at once. I spoke in the eating disorders debate elsewhere and unfortunately the winding-up speeches took a bit longer than I thought.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) on securing this important debate, which I was happy to co-sponsor. She knows the enormous interest I take in this issue, and not only in the international context; I have also spoken about domestic violence in this country, and as I have said before, if men knew the odds of getting caught and prosecuted—the prosecution rate is 6%, so they have a 94% chance of getting away with it—they would probably go for it. The international statistics are even more dramatic. In the former Yugoslavia, men have a 1:20,000 chance of being prosecuted, and in Rwanda, where I have spent the past seven years travelling, the figure is 1:50,000. That is a disgrace, and the Foreign Secretary is absolutely right to take a lead in this important initiative.
	As I have seen in Rwanda, the by-product of rape as a weapon of war are the orphans who live on after the conflict, infected with AIDS. I have spent time over the past seven years working with such children in a school in Kigali. Their mothers have been killed off by AIDS, but the children live on with the condition; they effectively have a time bomb within their bodies. They could die at any time. It is important to consider not only rape itself. We must investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of rape, but we must also think about what happens afterwards. We need to think about the children who were born as a result of rape, many of whom have AIDS. Perhaps through the International Development Secretary of State, we can see what we can do to give them more support.
	I also want to pay tribute to the International Commission on Missing Persons, which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary knows. I am spending a huge amount of time working on our taking a lead in supporting the excellent work of the commission in Bosnia over the past 15-plus years. It has done great work, and it is important that the UK should take the lead in securing a future for it. Finally, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s international protocol to investigate and prosecute sexual violence against women, because prosecution is extremely important.

Nicola Blackwood: I would like to thank everybody who has contributed to the debate. As the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), said, it is timely and important. Also, the subject could not be more sensitive, and everybody who has contributed today has risen to the challenge.
	I thank the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) for sharing my passion for “The West Wing”. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for
	Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for sharing her experiences in Kosovo, and the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) for her cross-party support in sponsoring the debate. She is a great champion of these issues, and her support today is greatly appreciated. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) got straight to the point with her comments.
	I thank all the other hon. Members who have spoken today, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who spoke of his arresting personal experiences. Although she did not make a speech, I would also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), who has been a long-term supporter on these issues and who supported us in securing the debate. I also thank the shadow Secretary of State for recognising that this issue transcends party boundaries and that it is a moral and strategic imperative for the UK.
	I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s progress and his announcement on the G8 issues that we are facing. I am particularly pleased that there will be an emphasis on capacity building, on justice and accountability and on an end to impunity. I am also pleased that the preventing sexual violence initiative will build on existing peace-building efforts, and that he is committed to ensuring that United Nations Security Council resolution 1325 will be central to our vision. I am pleased that a key priority of the PSVI will be to integrate support services for survivors with protection for women human rights defenders.
	For too long, the international community has uttered warm words and passed many resolutions on the violence and exclusion facing women and girls in conflict. It has recognised the problem and proposed solutions, but it has not implemented them effectively on the ground. It is now time to reject, once and for all, the myth that violence against women and girls is a cultural and inevitable consequence of conflict; it is not.
	The proposals for the PSVI, in conjunction with the national action plans for resolution 1325, the building stability overseas strategy, the plans for violence against women and girls and the Foreign Secretary’s personal commitment to drive this agenda through the G8 and the United Nations, mean that there is now a real chance finally to get action on the ground to deter conflict-related sexual violence and genuinely to put an end to the flagrant impunity that exists today. In order to do that, we must make the most of all the resources at our disposal.
	The message I most want to convey is that the women I have met and heard about have proved that, despite all the odds stacked against them, they are not just victims: they are a resource for peace and security, and without them peace will be harder to find and to keep. Many lives will be lost and ruined through the sexual and gender-based violence we have heard about today while we try to find that peace without them.
	Question put and agreed to,
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of preventing sexual violence in conflict.

COVENTRY AND WARWICKSHIRE CITY DEAL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Greg Hands.)

Chris White: I am grateful to have secured this debate on the Coventry and Warwickshire city deal proposal, which has now been put before the Government. I congratulate the Coventry and Warwickshire local enterprise partnership, the Coventry and Warwickshire chamber of commerce, Warwickshire county council, Warwick district council, Coventry city council and all the local organisations, businesses and authorities—as well as my colleagues in the Chamber this evening—who have contributed to and supported the bid.
	I fully support the city deal concept. I believe that devolving power to local communities and the principle of subsidiarity—devolving power to the organisation most capable of taking a decision—should be at the heart of Government policy. The city deal approach is that principle in action. Our city regions can be the engines of growth, and by crafting deals that provide targeted support and resources, we can generate significant economic momentum.
	There are three factors in building a good city deal. First, it needs to build on local strengths and expertise. The UK economy is diverse, and city deals therefore have potential.

Marcus Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He mentioned local priorities. In our area, manufacturing is a local priority. It has been a strength for many years and continues to be so. Does he agree that the city deal will enable us to build on the strength of our manufacturing skills—there could well be a skills gap in the next few years—and thereby of our manufacturing industry?

Chris White: I thank my hon. Friend for attending the debate. The main part of my speech addresses those very issues.
	The UK economy is diverse and city deals have potential as they can be tailored to the needs of local economies and build on the infrastructure that already exists. We should not be trying to reinvent the wheel or impose a top-down plan for economic growth on the country, and a good city deal will work with the grain of the local economy.

Mark Pawsey: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on having secured this important debate. The city deal affects the economy of the constituencies of all of us who have participated thus far. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important aspects of the city deal is that industry and business have worked with local authorities of a variety of political complexions in the best interests of the entire area?

Chris White: I do agree.
	Secondly, a city deal needs to have wide-ranging private sector support. Too often, we create proposals and then put them to business, and that approach does
	not generate the best results. A good city deal should be co-produced with small, medium and large local businesses, and should seek to remove their barriers to growth.
	Thirdly, a city deal needs to have widespread political buy-in. City deals should try to build as strong a consensus as possible among local authorities, so that businesses get the policy clarity they need and feel the confidence they need to invest in the future.
	The Coventry and Warwickshire city deal meets all three criteria, and is an example of how a city deal can make a significant difference to the local economy. The bid focuses on advanced manufacturing and engineering. As co-chair of the associate parliamentary manufacturing group, I am pleased to see this vital part of our local economy recognised and championed.
	Coventry and Warwickshire have a great manufacturing heritage, and the area is home to a range of world-beating manufacturing and engineering businesses. Our city deal area has one tenth of all English motor manufacturing jobs and the second highest proportion of employment in advanced manufacturing and digital media by each LEP area. My constituency alone has fantastic companies such as AGA Rangemaster and Dennis Eagle, which are examples of the pioneering businesses to which our area is home. Infrastructure is already in place with our world-class universities, further education colleges such as Warwickshire college and transportation links—and we should use these assets to our best advantage.
	We are at the heart of the UK’s manufacturing, and as I and many other hon. Members have said repeatedly in debates in the past, manufacturing has the potential to bring jobs and to rebalance our economy towards a more export-orientated economy. This city deal recognises that the next 10 years are not going to be like the last. That kind of forward thinking is to be applauded. We need proposals that can adapt to the changing economic circumstances—national and international—that we face. I think this city deal does exactly that. The deal has been created in partnership with businesses, and I believe that this shows the thrust of the city deal’s proposals.
	We all recognise that the bedrock of a strong manufacturing sector is skills. If we are going to grow advanced manufacturing and engineering in our region, we need to have the skills in place to enable businesses to grow and make the products that are wanted around the world. This city deal cuts right to the heart of this problem, and highlights the skills shortage that is holding back our local economy. According to the latest estimates, there is a shortage of about 18,000 high-level engineers in the west midlands. The Coventry and Warwickshire area is likely to need up to 25,000 level 2 and level 3 engineers to replace our existing work force. If we are not able to meet that demand, businesses will not be able to grow and we will have to spend more income trying to retrain staff or poach them from other businesses, reducing funding for investment, research and development —holding back growth in the long term.

Mark Pawsey: I endorse my hon. Friend’s remarks about the work force in the Coventry and Warwickshire area. I visit businesses in my Rugby constituency, many of which are doing well, growing and supporting the developing motor industry. I see workers there operating skilled machinery who are generally of the same generation
	as myself—there are few younger people there. Businesses tell me that that they have the business to grow and develop, but that they are struggling to find the youngsters with the skills. That is why the Game Changer proposal that is part of this city deal is so important.

Chris White: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Part of solving a problem is recognising where the gap is. I think that the city deal goes a long way towards solving that particular problem in the local area.
	I repeat that the city deal has strong political support from across region, with Coventry city council, Warwickshire county council, Warwick district council and five other district councils supporting the proposal from across all the political parties. I believe that this will ensure that businesses can feel confident in these proposals and can know that if they invest in skills and training, they will be supported and will find partners in our region if they want to expand and grow their work forces.
	The deal has brought various business groups together, such as the local chambers of trade and Coventry and Warwickshire chamber of commerce. In the light of the city deal bid, Coventry and Warwickshire chamber of commerce has today agreed a new partnership with the Manufacturing Advisory Service and EEF, which will provide better services for manufacturers, engineering companies and automated businesses. It is an example of the additional concentration and focus that the bid has been able to provide.
	To achieve this, the Coventry and Warwickshire LEP will create a re-engineering skills board, which will bring together businesses, universities, colleges and local authorities to join up supply and demand so that both providers and employers can plan for the future, matching training provision to business cycles rather than fixed academic cycles. The board will work on new courses to meet the specific requirements of local manufacturers, and to build on local successes such as the advanced skills accreditation scheme chaired by Jaguar Land Rover. The proposals sensibly focus on the upskilling of existing engineers and the retraining of unemployed people, which would enable us to use the labour resources currently at our disposal to achieve the maximum impact. All this will come under the heading of the Game Changer skills programme mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), which will be a brand that both local people and businesses can recognise and understand.
	The city deal makes four requests. First, it asks the Government to devolve control of skills and apprenticeship funding to deliver the programme. Secondly, it asks them to allow Coventry and Warwickshire to pilot the new traineeships programme and level 6/7 apprenticeships. Thirdly, it asks for local flexibility that would allow it to adapt the Work programme to the proposal, so that those aged 18 to 24 could attend GAME changer skills programme events. Finally, it asks for capital funding to be realised for the development of an advanced manufacturing apprentice resource at the manufacturing technology centre in Ansty.
	I believe that these are targeted, sensible proposals which will ensure that we obtain the maximum value for money and build on the programmes and infrastructure that we already possess, but they must be weighed against the expected benefits. I believe that this city deal
	bid shows great potential for the future of our area. The aim is to deliver 5,000 new engineers to the workplace over the next two years, and to eliminate the city deal area’s engineering skills shortage by 2020, as well as significantly increasing the number of engineering apprenticeships being delivered at intermediate and higher levels.
	On the back of that stronger skills base, the city deal could potentially eliminate the productivity gap in Coventry and Warwickshire, adding billions of pounds to our economy and creating the environment for tens of thousands of new jobs. The bid itself estimates that about 30,000 jobs could be created through its skills programme alone. I believe that those are significant benefits which are in line with the Government’s objectives of reducing unemployment, rebalancing our economy towards manufacturing and exports, and reskilling our economy so that we are able to adapt to future and desperate needs.
	I recognise that there is competition for wave 2 of the city deals project, and I know that Ministers will be considering a variety of other bids. However, I believe that the Coventry and Warwickshire city deal has fantastic potential for our region and for communities across the west midlands. There is a shared sense of purpose throughout the public, private and independent sectors as a result of the bid, and we have a unique opportunity to capitalise on the momentum that has been generated by this proposal.
	I urge the Government to pick the Coventry and Warwickshire city deal bid, and to invest in the skills of local people in an area which has the infrastructure in place to grow. That will not only enhance our competitiveness but, most important, create tens of thousands of jobs.

Greg Clark: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) on his excellent speech, and on securing a debate that is very important to his area. In the two and a half years for which he has been in the House, he has already established a reputation for being a tenacious champion of manufacturing industry and, indeed, the area that he represents. I know that his passion for manufacturing and for the creation of jobs in his area is entirely shared by our hon. Friends the Members for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and for Nuneaton (Mr Jones). It is delightful to see them both in the Chamber.
	As Members will know, the debate is very timely. The expressions of interest in the next wave of city deals were submitted just a few weeks ago. I am considering them as we speak—not at precisely this second, but as soon as I leave the Chamber I will resume my consideration of them. This bid is a tribute to the joint working and the enthusiasm that has been generated locally. The litany of different organisations that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington mentioned underlines the degree of support for and consensus behind what could be a major opportunity for his area, if we are able to approve this city deal.
	My hon. Friends will know that I visited Coventry last month to discuss the evolution of the city deal bid, and I was particularly impressed by the level of representation from all the local authorities in the area and businesses at the highest level. Sir Peter Rigby, the
	chairman of the local enterprise partnership, chaired the meeting, and other business organisations were represented, as were the universities and people from right across the board. It was clear that this is a united bid, very much looking to a very positive future for the area. It was particularly impressive to see everyone working together in that way.
	It was also impressive to see the laser-like focus on manufacturing and skills there. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that one of the proudest traditions of the area that he and his colleagues represent is that of being the heartland of British manufacturing. Far from that being a story just about the past, it is very much a story of today and of the future. The people behind this bid were prescient in emphasising that the undoubted opportunities that will flow through the increasingly internationally competitive world of advanced manufacturing can be grasped only if we make sure that the work force in the area are equipped with not only manufacturing skills, but the particular skills that the new technologies of the future in this field will offer. The support of the universities, in particular, and of the research institutions make it clear that this is a very high-quality offer that is being made.
	My hon. Friend will understand that it would be invidious of me to give any kind of nod or wink to him this evening—tempting though that might be—not least because this evening’s proceedings will doubtless be being viewed by 19 other places around the country. They will be very envious of his good fortune in securing this debate, so he will forgive me if I do not do that. Let me instead take the opportunity to reflect on the city deals process and the arrangements we have put in place. I start with a point that my hon. Friend made, which is that we should recognise the importance of local strengths in the future of our economy.
	Obviously, it is of prime importance that our country has the right macro-economic conditions to sustain growth and prosperity in the future. Paying down the deficit we inherited and having an economy in which international lenders can have confidence is the foundation of any future economic success. All Government Members are engaged, day after day, in making the changes necessary to secure that. However, it is also important that we have the right micro-economic conditions: a tax system that is supportive of business and enterprise, and that encourages investment; and flexible labour markets that allow people to go into the places with an expanding number of jobs and allow employers to expand employment with confidence. Again, the work being done in not only my Department, but the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions is very much geared to having those conditions in place.
	If we do all that, it is still necessary to reflect that our economic prosperity ultimately depends on local places prospering. Economic growth does not happen in the abstract; it happens in particular places, when employers locate, expand their production and take on people. These are places that people can visit and address; they are tangible.
	For too long—over many decades—how we have conducted our economic policy has paid too little heed to the importance of locality. It is tempting for politicians in Westminster and our officials in Whitehall to peer out from London SW1 and assume that the rest of
	the country is uniform, when we know that one of the glories of our country is that it is full of areas, towns and cities with proud traditions that are the foundation of our future economic success. The city deals programme is intended to ensure that that sense of place is part of our economic policy.
	As soon as one considers that we should have a sense of place in economic policy, it becomes obvious that every place is different. We have already discussed the importance of manufacturing in the traditions in the west midlands, but that is true across the country. Everywhere has its local traditions and capabilities. Even cities as close together as Liverpool and Manchester are very different in their economic character, their skills, trades and industries, their politics and in almost every respect, so to treat them as if they are identical seems to me to deny them the possibility of living up to their potential and planning for the future.
	The city deals programme was designed to reflect the differences between places. We started with the eight bigger cities outside London and in July 2011, when the Prime Minister asked me to become the Minister responsible for cities, we gave each of those cities the right to take the initiative and set out to negotiate what, in their view, would be the measures that would best unlock their potential. There was some scepticism at the time about whether it would be possible to break the monopoly of Whitehall in determining how things should be done, but in less than a year we were able to conclude a city deal with each of those eight places, which were transformational. In Greater Manchester, for example, £2 billion of local investment in infrastructure is being made in return for the city’s share in the resulting prosperity. In Leeds, apprentices and school leavers are being trained in the skills that the city’s future economy needs, as Leeds and the authorities around it have identified needs that should attract a particular focus.

Marcus Jones: My right hon. Friend is making an extremely important point about locality and the need to ensure that we tailor the Government’s support package to each area. Does he agree with me that that is a far better and more effective approach than that taken by the previous Government through regional development agencies such as Advantage West Midlands? Private sector employment fell during that time rather than increasing. I appreciate that, as he has told us, my right hon. Friend will not be able to tell us the result today, but does he agree that if the Coventry and Warwickshire city deal was granted, it would be a far better step forward for the area than the previous regime?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The problem was that the regional development agencies were branch offices of Whitehall in the country, which seems to be the opposite of the approach we need to liberate the entrepreneurialism and local strengths of particular areas. The areas should be coming to Whitehall, as they are—as the Coventry and Warwickshire local enterprise partnership has—and saying what they want to do. The problem with the RDAs was that it was the other way around.
	The RDAs described a geography created by administrators rather than something that reflected the genuine historic and economic geography that prevails.
	The west midlands is one example, but the north-west is another. The identities of world-renowned cities such as Manchester and Liverpool were subsumed and became totally anonymous in the Northwest Regional Development Agency, so it is absolutely necessary to make these changes. My hon. Friend is right to point out that even in their own terms the regional development agencies were a failure because the differences between London and the south-east and the regions widened during all that time. So it was right for city deals to be a priority.
	One of the contrasts between our country and other countries on the continent of Europe, for example, is that in Germany almost every German city outside the capital of Berlin has a higher income per head than the national average, whereas in this country only one of the bigger cities outside London, Bristol, is above the national average. All the others are below. On the continent, not just in Germany but in France, Italy and other countries, the powerhouses of the regional economy drive the national economy, whereas regrettably over the past 20 years ours have been lagging behind that.

Marcus Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way again. He is making an extremely important point, which is reflected in the west midlands region, where gross value added has been on the decline since the mid-1970s, with the decline in manufacturing industry and the unbalancing of our economy. What he says is absolutely right. With the city deal that we hope to get for Coventry and Warwickshire, we could see that manufacturing base start to increase again, accompanied by an increase in gross value added and a better average income in our area, compared with the south-east and London.

Greg Clark: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. That is exactly the point of the city deals programme. It is designed to reflect what is undoubtedly the case, especially with the strength and breadth of the local engagement that this bid demonstrates. Who better to be able to make the decisions and the analysis of what is needed for the Warwickshire economy than the business people, the civic leaders and the leaders of some of the finest universities in the country, who are there? It is important that we build on those strengths.

Mark Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is refreshing that local people and local businesses, having determined what is best to grow the local economy, ask not for infrastructure, roads, buildings or grandiose schemes, but for investment in people and in skills that will enable the economy to grow and prosper?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend accurately reflects the difference between places. In some places the pressing need is for infrastructure because they have a legacy of infrastructure that is not fit for purpose, that has been made redundant and out of date. In other places the need is to supply the skills. That is the beauty of the bid programme.
	Let me say a little about the second wave of city deals. Following the success of the eight initial city deals, I was very keen that the programme should be spread to other cities and areas around the country, so we have issued an invitation to 20 more areas to make a proposition to the Government. It is important to emphasise at this
	stage that these are expressions of interest and will be evaluated as such. It is not the final word. Those that are invited to go forward will be asked to engage intensively with me and my officials so that we can shape a proposition that can then be put to my ministerial colleagues for approval. There will be some way to go in those negotiations. It is right to remind people locally as well as in the Chamber that this is not the last word. It is an important expression of interest, but it has a further way to go.
	We have said that there is no limit on the number of city deals that we will be able to conclude. For all those expressions of interest that demonstrate potential, my ambition is that we should be able to take them forward and achieve something important with them. Having spoken in Coventry with the leaders whom my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington mentions,
	I think it important that we take advantage of the focus on advanced manufacturing and on skills, and the benefit of important institutions such as the Manufacturing Technology Centre and the motor industry research centre being located there.
	The prospect that is held out is for 5,000 high quality engineering jobs. I can think of no finer contribution that my hon. Friend, following his advocacy today, could give to his constituents than to inject that into the future of his economy. Without pre-empting the announcement that will be made shortly, I congratulate him on his excellent support for a very encouraging bid.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.